1021821

research-article2021
LTR0010.1177/13621688211021821Language Teaching ResearchAhmadi Safa and Mottaghi

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Cognitive vs. metacognitive

1­–24
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
scaffolding strategies and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13621688211021821
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211021821
EFL learners’ listening journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

comprehension development

Mohammad Ahmadi Safa

and Fateme Motaghi
Bu-Ali Sina University, Iran

Abstract
Studies have documented the significance of scaffolding as a sociocultural theory driven type of
assistance for the development of English as foreign language (EFL) learners’ language skills in
general; however, the comparative efficacy of various cognitive and/or metacognitive scaffolding
procedures for EFL learners’ listening comprehension development and progress has received
scant attention. As a partial attempt in this regard, this study investigated the comparative efficacy
of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies for EFL learners’ listening comprehension
development. For this purpose, 90 intermediate level EFL learners aged 15 to 20 were selected
to participate in this study. The participants’ actual proficiency level was assessed using a
sample TOEFL Junior Standard test and relatively homogeneous classes of nearly 15 learners
were formed and randomly assigned to two experimental conditions and a control one. The
listening section of TOEFL Junior standard test was used as the pre- and posttest. While the
learners in both experimental conditions worked in groups of three or four learners on some
listening comprehension tasks, the participants of the first experimental condition received
cognitive scaffolding strategies, and the second experimental group members were treated
using metacognitive scaffolding strategies, the control group members received teacher-fronted
non-scaffolding instruction. In addition to a listening comprehension posttest, a semi-structured
interview was given to a number of participants of each experimental condition to explore their
attitudes towards given scaffolding strategies. The analyses verified that metacognitive scaffolding
strategies had a significant superior effect on EFL learners’ listening development compared
to cognitive scaffolding strategies and non-scaffolding instruction. Furthermore, the analyses
revealed that the EFL learners were generally more pleased with the metacognitive scaffolding
procedures and viewed them as instructive, innovative, and effective for finding problems, better
comprehension and increased readiness.

Corresponding author:
Mohammad Ahmadi Safa, English Department, Humanities Faculty, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
Email: m.ahmadisafa@basu.ac.ir
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Keywords
cognitive scaffolding strategies, EFL learners, Iran, listening comprehension, metacognitive
scaffolding strategies

I Introduction
Vygotskian sociocultural theory (SCT) and its different concepts like zone of proximal
development (ZPD), scaffolding, mediation, and activity theory have for long obsessed
second language (L2) learning theorists and educators (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). From
among such concepts, the metaphor of ‘scaffolding’ was introduced to education around
half a century ago (Wood et al., 1976) through neo-Vygotskian discussions to character-
ize the qualities of other-regulation mechanisms within the learners’ ZPD and ever since
then educational experts and researchers have tried to define and characterize the con-
cept from their own perspective. Molenaar and Roda (2008), for instance, define scaf-
folding as providing assistance to a learner to perform a given activity or gain mastery
and withdrawing the assistance as the competence increases. Donato (1994, p. 41) so
characterizes the concept that ‘scaffolded performance is a dialogically constituted
interpsychological mechanism that promotes the novice’s internalization of knowledge
co-constructed in shared activity.’ Educators have also emphasized that the learners need
scaffolds to improve the regulation of their cognitive activities and to support their meta-
cognitive processes, which in turn lead to the improvement of their competences (e.g.
Molenaar et al., 2011).
Concerning such cognitive and metacognitive processes, it is notable that despite their
perceived similarities in some respects, theoreticians view them basically different from
each other. Flavell (1979) conceptualized metacognition as a superordinate term and
included cognition within his definition of metacognitive processes. He defines meta-
cognition as the knowledge and cognition that people have of their own cognitive pro-
cesses and states that metacognition is gained through monitoring one’s own ‘memory,
comprehension, and other cognitive enterprises’ (1979, p. 1). The distinctive nature of
cognitive and metacognitive processes entails the apparent distinctions between cogni-
tive and metacognitive scaffolding procedures both in form and their distinguishing
effects on foreign language (FL) learners’ abilities and/or skills development in turn.
On the other hand, FL learners’ listening comprehension development might be ben-
efited by both cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding procedures on the following
grounds: First, as the studies have verified, the development of L2 listening comprehen-
sion needs assistance and support (Molenaar & Roda, 2008) and scaffolding type of
assistance is preferred over non-scaffolding assistance type in this respect (Ahmadi Safa
& Beheshti, 2018; Ahmadi Safa & Rozati, 2017; Beheshti & Ahmadi Safa, 2020; Yang,
2013). Second, according to Goh and Taib (2006), L2 learners should fully comprehend
the nature, importance, and demands of second language listening, so that they can be
able to monitor, evaluate and manage their learning processes and abilities that are meta-
cognitive in nature. Hence, given that the studies have verified the educational merits of
scaffolding in general (e.g. Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Khatib & Ahmadi Safa, 2011;
Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Ohta, 2001), a more novel and significant inquiry in this regard
in particular might be the study of the relative efficacy of cognitive and metacognitive
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 3

scaffolding procedures and their comparative effects on the development of FL learners’

listening comprehension development.
Moreover, such studies are even more justified on the grounds that, as is rightly
attested by Vandergrift and Goh (2012), a strong need is felt to design procedures to sup-
port learners of English as foreign language (EFL) to effectively activate their listening
practices, be aware of their thinking processes, and self-direct their learning. In addition,
on the basis of an upcoming brief review of the related literature, it seems quite evident
that the study of the comparative effects of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding strat-
egies on the development of foreign language learners’ skills and abilities in general and
listening comprehension in particular yet is to be undertaken.
Building on such bases, the researchers aimed to explore whether cognitive and meta-
cognitive scaffolding procedures might be differentially effective for the Iranian EFL
learners’ listening comprehension development. It is noteworthy that unlike other lan-
guage skills, the applications of sociocultural theory tenets for Iranian EFL learners’ lis-
tening comprehension development have only scarcely been studied and deserve more
attention (Ahmadi Safa & Beheshti, 2018; Ahmadi Safa & Rozati, 2017; Beheshti &
Ahmadi Safa, 2020). Addressing a closely related preoccupation, studies (e.g. Cross,
2010; James, 2010; Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2014; Vandergrift, 2003; Wang, 2015)
have attested to a need for a deeper understanding in this regard and have called for
investigations to find specific means by which cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding
procedures help listening comprehension improvement and enable learners to have a
long-term listening progress (Goh, 2008).

II Review of the related literature

As a basic tenet of SCT, learning should not be seen only as an individual development,
but as a process that is embedded within social events through which the individual
interacts with people and events in the environment (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). It is in
the heart of such interactions that key constructs and processes of SCT including ZPD,
mediation, scaffolding, and regulation are formed. ZPD, as the most well-known con-
struct of SCT (Lantolf, 2005), refers to the ontogenesis of higher mental functions
(Vygotsky, 1986) and is defined as ‘the distance between the actual developmental level
as determined through independent problem solving and the level of potential develop-
ment as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). A key aspect of such developmental
process that characterizes adult guidance or peers’ collaboration is scaffolding that is
defined as an interactive exchange which decreases the difficulty of the task, keeps
learners focused, helps learners through the steps of task completion, and transfers the
responsibility of the task to the learners (Poehner & Infante, 2016). Scaffolding is also
characterized as being dialogic, contingent, and graduated (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).
Being dialogic stresses ‘the continuous assessment of the learners’ ZPD and subsequent
tailoring of help to best facilitate progression from other-regulation to self-regulation’
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 277). Contingency of scaffolding refers to the teachers’
adaptation of their support to the learners’ needs (Van de Pol, et al., 2010) and it entails
that the assistance must be offered only whenever it is needed and withdrawn as soon as
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

the learner is able to function independently. Assistance should also be graduated which
means that over-assistance should be avoided and provision of no more help is author-
ized than necessary.
Studies have amply verified the utility and efficiency of scaffolding procedures for
the development of different foreign or second language skills (Ahmadi Safa & Beheshti,
2018; Ahmadi Safa & Rozati, 2017; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Jumaat & Tasir, 2016;
Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Molenaar, et al., 2011; Molenaar & Roda, 2008; Nassaji &
Swain, 2000; Ohta, 2001; Smith & Higgins, 2006; Yang, 2013); however, the study of
the comparative efficacy of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding procedures for dif-
ferent FL skills development in general and listening comprehension development in
particular has still only scantly been at the focus of researchers’ attention and hence L2
theorizers and educators have called for more studies in this regard (Goh, 2008).
Concerning the theoretical distinctions between cognitive and metacognitive scaf-
folding procedures, a brief explication of the differences between cognitive and meta-
cognitive processes might be illuminating. Flavell (1979) maintains that for any
cognitive development there is a need for a higher-order process to begin the action,
regulate the cognitive function, and evaluate the outcome of the task. Such processes
constitute ‘metacognition’, where ‘meta’ means about or beyond or higher than its own
category. In other words, metacognition is ‘thinking about thinking’ and a form of
higher-order thinking process (Flavell, 1979). Mevarech and Kramarski (2014) distin-
guish cognition and metacognition in terms of some exemplar actions. They state that
recalling the credit card PIN number, for example, is a cognitive process and the strat-
egy that is used to recall it is a metacognitive process; solving an equation is a cognitive
activity, but reflecting on the answer and how it fits the problem is viewed as a meta-
cognitive process.
Similar to cognitive processes that are verified to be learnable, studies have shown
that metacognitive processes are open to mediation and learning as well (Molenaar &
Roda, 2008). The attested learnability of higher order metacognitive processes and the
emphasized efficacy of scaffolding type of assistance invoke the idea that the integration
of the two concepts might be even more effective for the development of different lan-
guage skills. Despite its theoretical rigor and empirical practicality, the idea has not
received the researchers’ due attention yet and only few studies have underscored its
salience for foreign language skills development. The number of studies which incorpo-
rate the idea into FL learners’ listening comprehension development is even more limited
than the other language skills.
The studies carried out in different general education contexts have revealed that the
use of cognitive scaffolding strategies enable learners to build and connect ideas and to
show what they do not know. In addition, they encourage active participation in learning,
give learners opportunities to progress faster (Smith & Higgins, 2006), probe learners’
thinking, and enable them to answer questions and do the tasks that they could not do
without scaffolding (Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2014). On the other hand, metacognitive
scaffolding strategies have been shown to guide learners (Roll et al., 2007), help them
perform better than those who do not receive such support (Ge & Land, 2003), increase
high quality intra-group social metacognitive interaction (Molenaar et al., 2014) and make
the learners aware of their own levels of knowledge and proficiency (Channa et al., 2018).
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 5

Critical reflection on such results of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding proce-

dures seems to highlight the compatibility of the type of scaffolding procedures applied
and the kind of learning processes that are developed. In other words, the cognitive scaf-
folding procedures are found to be effective for fostering cognitive processes and the
metacognitive scaffolding procedures seem to be more effective for the development of
metacognitive processes of learning. This idea is implicitly suggested by Torrisi (2018)
where he maintains that effective metacognitive scaffolding is needed to develop meta-
cognition and provide external support to the learners to facilitate their metacognitive
processes during problem solving.
Parallel to the studies carried out in general education contexts, researches in SL/FL
contexts, though much more limited in number, have explored the comparative impacts
of cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies on some aspects of SL/FL learning
including metacognitive skills development and problem solving (An & Cao, 2014;
Pifarre & Cobos, 2010), academic achievement and success (James, 2010), and reading
comprehension (Yang, 2013) and have also confirmed the differential impacts of cogni-
tive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies on the given aspects of second and/or for-
eign language learning. James (2010), for instance, integrated scaffolding procedure
with conferencing, questioning and modeling metacognitive strategies and explored the
influence of metacognitive scaffolding on college students’ academic achievement. He
tried to involve the students in learning processes and enable them to regulate their own
thinking through the use of one-on-one conferencing, questioning, and modeling meta-
cognitive strategies. The analysis of the participants’ reflection journals and their final
scores showed that they had made a connection between text information and their prior
knowledge and the strategies had led to their improved achievement.
The attested dearth of studies focusing on the impact of cognitive and/or metacogni-
tive scaffolding on L2 learners’ language skills development is even more noticeable
when it comes to SL/FL language learners’ listening comprehension development.
Among the few studies which have partially addressed the topic, Vandergrift (2003)
investigated the influence of prediction and reflection metacognitive strategies on French
as a second language learners’ awareness of how to listen in L2. The findings docu-
mented a positive effect for the strategies on the French learners’ awareness of L2 listen-
ing comprehension processes and confirmed the grave significance of predication as a
metacognitive strategy, the usefulness of collaboration, and the motivational benefits of
the metacognitive activities. Following Vandergrift’s initiative, Wang (2015) incorpo-
rated a metacognitive approach in listening instruction. He applied the metacognitive
pedagogical cycle introduced by Vandergrift (2003) and Vandergrift and Goh (2012) to
Chinese university EFL learners and verified that the pedagogical cycle had a positive
effect on EFL learners’ listening proficiency and metacognitive knowledge. Wang con-
cluded that the metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective processes help language
learners develop self-regulated learning.
Applying metacognition as a scaffold for the development of listening comprehen-
sion in a social Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) application, Read and
Barcena (2016) studied the efficacy of MALL based metacognitive scaffolding for lis-
tening comprehension development. A social mobile assisted listening application
called Audio News Trainer (ANT) was used to investigate how students can be assisted
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

to apply metacognition in their linguistic communicative skills development. The find-

ings verified the students’ metacognition development, improved use of listening strate-
gies, and enhanced ability to comprehend the news recordings heard.
In addition to the limited number of studies reviewed above which applied metacog-
nitive scaffolding strategies to FL/SL listening comprehension development, few other
less relevant studies were also found in the literature which applied either scaffolding
procedures or cognitive/metacognitive activities for language learners’ listening compre-
hension development. Dimassi (2016), for instance, compared the pedagogic efficacy of
a cognitive strategy-based instruction method (CSBM) and a metacognitive strategy-
based instruction method (MetSBM) and showed that MetSBM approach was more
effective than CSBM and had a great impact on students’ listening comprehension devel-
opment. Zeng and Goh (2018) examined a self-regulated learning approach to extensive
listening and its impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness and con-
cluded that L2 listening teachers can use some metacognitive tools, which are carefully
designed to aid learners, prepare and plan for listening tasks, monitor their comprehen-
sion, and evaluate their strategy use in an autonomous way.
Focusing more on the efficacy of scaffolding procedures for EFL learners’ listening
comprehension, Ahmadi Safa and Rozati (2017) examined the impact of scaffolding and
non-scaffolding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development
and verified that both expert and coequal peers’ scaffolding had a more constructive
impact on the learners’ listening comprehension development than the non-scaffolding
types. Finally, Beheshti and Ahmadi Safa (2020) explored the comparative effects of col-
laborative dialogue as a scaffolding procedure on different symmetrical and asymmetri-
cal EFL learner groups’ listening comprehension development and highlighted the
cognitive efficiency and affective acceptability of the scaffolding procedures that were
offered by a more knowledgeable source, either a teacher or a peer, in asymmetrical
dyadic interactions for the less knowledgeable peers’ ZPD sensitive listening compre-
hension development.
Against the backdrop of the briefly reviewed literature, it is evident that the studies
focusing on the impacts of various cognitive and metacognitive activities, different pat-
terns of scaffolding and even metacognitive scaffolding strategies on some limited
aspects of FL/SL development are not remarkably scarce; however, quite few studies
were found to focus on the comparative effects of cognitive and metacognitive scaffold-
ing strategies on EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. On this basis, the
current study explored the educational impacts of cognitive scaffolding, metacognitive
scaffolding and non-scaffolding strategies on intermediate EFL learners’ listening com-
prehension development. Moreover, the EFL learners’ attitudes towards the efficacy of
the two scaffolding procedures were studied. To these ends, the following research ques-
tions were raised:

•• Research question 1: Do cognitive scaffolding strategies have any significant

effect on the intermediate EFL learners’ listening comprehension development?
•• Research question 2: Do metacognitive scaffolding strategies have any significant
effect on the intermediate EFL learners’ listening comprehension development?
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 7

•• Research question 3: Is there any significant difference between the cognitive and
metacognitive scaffolding and non-scaffolding strategies in their effects on the
intermediate EFL learners’ listening comprehension development?
•• Research question 4: How do the cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding groups’
members evaluate the efficacy of the given scaffolding strategies for their listen-
ing comprehension development?

III Method
1 Design
In an attempt to achieve a rather more comprehensive account of the differential impacts
of the study independent variables and aiming at a methodological triangulation, in addi-
tion to a positivistic perspective, the researchers opted for an interpretative layer of rea-
soning as well. With these objectives in mind, both quantitative and qualitative types of
data were collected in a quasi-experimental study and the obtained data were fed into
both quantitative statistical measures and qualitative descriptions. Attempts were made
to interrelate the obtained quantified and qualitized (Dornyei, 2007) results in the discus-
sion of the study findings.

2 Participants
One hundred and twenty Iranian female EFL learners from different language institutes
of Hamedan (a western province of Iran) were selected through convenience sampling
procedure to take a sample TOEFL Junior Standard test, on the basis of the results of
which ninety EFL learners were found at intermediate level following Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) scale of proficiency levels. The selected participants’
age ranged from 15 to 20 years and they were all native Farsi speakers.

3 Instruments
The following materials and instruments were employed to collect the required data:

•• A sample TOEFL Junior Standard test (TOEFL Junior; Educational Testing

Service (ETS), 2018) was applied on the basis of the results of which the partici-
pants, homogeneous in terms of general English proficiency, were to be selected.
The choice of TOEFL Junior Standard test was on the basis of its context validity
and practicality in the research context. The test measures listening comprehen-
sion, language form and meaning, and reading comprehension and is objective
and reliable measure of English communication skills (ETS, 2018). While the test
is designed for middle school and lower levels of high school and usually such
students are ages 11+ years, the tests may be appropriate for other students. It
includes 42 items for each part and the total test time is one hour fifty five min-
utes. The comparatively more manageable testing time in the research context was
among the main reasons for its choice.
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

•• The listening section of TOEFL Junior Standard test was used as the pre- and post-
listening comprehension tests as well. In order to make sure of the reliability of
the pre and posttest, Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency test was applied. The
results of the reliability analysis resulted in α = .71 for the pretest and α = .73 for
the posttest.
•• The instructional materials for the three groups were several tasks taken from
Tactics for Listening (Richards, 2011). This specific resource was selected on the
grounds that it is suitable for the intermediate level English learners (Richards,
2011).
•• A semi-structured interview was also designed by the researchers. It consisted of
seven preplanned question items for each study group. The interview was applied
in an attempt to triangulate data collection procedures and attain qualitative data
about the participants’ attitudes towards the given scaffolding strategies in each
respective group. Two TEFL experts were asked to comment on the structure,
content adequacy and usefulness of the interview questions prior to the conduct of
the interviews.

4 Data collection procedures

At the outset of study, 120 intermediate level EFL learners who had been recruited in
different language institutes of Hamedan were conveniently chosen and a TOEFL Junior
Standard test was administered to them. On the basis of the test results and using CEFR
band score, 90 homogeneous intermediate level EFL learners were identified and their
informed consent to participate in the study was obtained. Besides, they were assured
that their participation in the study was certainly on voluntary basis and the obtained
information would be kept quite confidential and used for research purposes only. The
participants’ scores on the listening comprehension section of the TOEFL Junior
Standard test was considered as their pretest score. As the number of participants in
each of the language institute classes was limited to 15–20 class members and given the
fact that the researchers were not allowed to manipulate the structure and organization
of the classes, two intact classes were assumed to form each single study group which
altogether included around 30 of the previously identified homogeneous participants. It
needs to be added that those EFL learners who were not found at the intended intermedi-
ate level of general English proficiency on the basis of TOEFL Junior Standard test
results were also present in their recruited courses; however, making sure that all condi-
tions were equal to all class takers, their test results and data were not used for the study
purposes.
Finally the assignment of the study groups to the three treatment procedures was done
on a random basis in the following order: Group 1: Cognitive scaffolding, group 2:
Metacognitive scaffolding and group 3: Non-scaffolding control group. All three groups’
members attended 16 sessions of instruction as a requirement of their recruited English
course and the study was done as an integrated part of the main course. The teacher of all
study groups was the co-author of the study. Around 20–30 minutes of each session was
allocated to the following treatment procedures:
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 9

Table 1. Subcategories of cognitive activities (adopted from Vandergrift, 1997).

Subcategory Description Examples

Formally practicing By providing a transcript, you can
with sounds and mark out words that are unfamiliar,
writing system make notes about intonation, and
repeat statements verbally that
might be difficult
Getting the idea Explicitly identify realistic
quickly expectations and communicate them
Practice note- Whether attending a lecture or
taking skills listening to a podcast, it is important
that you take notes
Highlighting the Pre-teach any vocabulary that you
important points predict will be new or particularly
challenging for the learners to have
more headspace to focus on the
task at hand
The instructor provides a
transcript for all of or part of
the task
Listen for the main idea or a
specific detail
Note the title and date, take
notes selectively (main ideas,
key elements, and examples)
Select essential vocabulary
around a topic, find the
meaning of each word, and
provide vocabulary maps

Group 1. The learners worked in groups of three or four on some tasks extracted from
Tactics for listening: Developing (Richards, 2011) and whenever they encountered a
problem they could not solve through peer-peer interaction, applying the most context-
specific and relevant cognitive strategies, the teacher provided them with contingent, i.e.
offered only whenever needed, graduated, i.e. no more help provided than necessary, and
dialogic, i.e. involving continuous assessment of the learners’ ZPD and tailoring the
assistance to best facilitate progression from other-regulation to self-regulation (Lantolf
& Thorne, 2006), assistance. The cognitive strategies for this group were adopted from
Vandergrift (1997) and included ‘formal practicing with sounds and writing system, get-
ting the idea quickly, taking notes, and highlighting the important points’ (Table 1). In an
attempt to apply the strategies as scaffolds, the strategies were offered whenever neces-
sary, up to the extent necessary, and in dialogic form.

Group 2. While the same tasks given to the first group were given to this group as well,
the scaffolding procedures for this group were designed and ordered on the basis of the
typology of metacognitive activities (Table 2) including orientation, planning, monitor-
ing, evaluation, and reflection (Meijer et al., 2006). At the outset of each task completion,
the teacher raised some general background questions in an attempt to focus the learners’
attention on the goal of the task and help them identify its purpose. Then, the learners
planned the task and decided about how to do it in their groups. Next, they worked on the
tasks in groups of three or four. The instructor asked them to monitor their comprehen-
sion progress by checking their understanding and errors and evaluate their comprehen-
sion by checking the outcome of the task and see if they needed to revise their plans or
strategies. At the end, they were asked to reflect on their own learning and performance,
the strategy they used, and the times they had difficulty doing the task. In each of these
phases, whenever the learners encountered a problem they could not solve through
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 2. Subcategories of metacognitive activities (adopted from Meijer et al., 2006).

Subcategory Description Examples

Orientation Orientation on prior knowledge, task
demands and feelings about the task
Planning Planning of the learning process, for
instance, sequencing of activities or
choice of strategies
Monitoring Monitoring of the learning process:
checking progress and comprehension
of the task
Evaluation Evaluation of the learning process:
checking of the content of the learning
activities
Reflection Reflection on the learning process and
strategies through elaboration on the
learning process
What do we need to do?
Do you know what a learning goal is?
How are we going to do this?
Now we are going to ask questions
I do not understand
You are doing it wrong
Wait, please just leave it like that
We posted a good question
These are the most important issues
Let me think, this is more difficult than
I thought
Why do we have the most difficult task?

peer-peer interaction, the instructor supported them using the most relevant problem
specific metacognitive strategies offered only whenever necessary, up to the extent
needed, and in dialogic form.

Group 3. The participants of this group received non-scaffolding traditional teacher

fronted instruction and feedback. They worked on the same tasks the other groups were
given, but did not receive any form of cognitive or metacognitive scaffolds that were
offered in the experimental groups. Furthermore, there was no group work or interaction
in this group. In the case of any problem or difficulty of understanding on the side of the
learners, the teacher provided them with a direct and explicit solution or answer to the
problem.
At the end of the 16 treatment sessions, the listening section of the TOEFL Junior
Standard test was administered to all of the participants of the three study groups as the
posttest. Moreover, about 10 randomly selected participants from each experimental
group took part in a semi-structured interview.

IV Results
In order to check the normality of the obtained data, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was
applied to TOEFL Junior, pre- and posttest data the results of which are illustrated in
Table 3. As is indicated in Table 3, the obtained data for all three tests were normally
distributed since the three p-values fell above the significant level (p = .19, .08, .15 >
.05). In order to make sure of the homogeneity of the three groups’ general English pro-
ficiency, a one-way ANOVA analysis was run on the groups’ TOEFL Junior test scores
and the results showed no significant differences in the proficiency level of the three
groups (F (2, 89) = .359, p = .70 > .05).
To answer the first and second research questions addressing the efficacy of the cogni-
tive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies for the listening comprehension development
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 11

Table 3. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality for the three groups’ TOEFL Junior, pre, and
posttest scores.

Test Kolmogorov–Smirnov

Statistic df Sig.
TOEFL Junior .082 90 .190
Pretest .087 90 .086
Posttest .084 90 .152

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of pretest and posttest scores of the three groups.

Mean N Std. Std.

deviation error mean
cognitive Pair 1 Pre test 26.80 30 3.199 .5840
Posttest 27.70 30 4.069 .743
metacognitive Pair 2 Pre test 28.86 30 3.380 .617
Posttest 30.46 30 3.963 .723
non- scaffolding Pair 3 Pre test 27.33 30 3.565 .650
Post test 27.56 30 3.180 .580

of the EFL learners, paired samples t-tests were carried out. The results are illustrated in
Tables 4 and 5.
As is descriptively illustrated in Table 4, the three groups’ listening comprehension
mean scores relatively increased from pre to posttest; however, the significance of the
increases was in need of statistical assessment. Table 5 tabulates the results of the
assessment.
As is indicated in Table 5, the statistical significance of the increases from pretest (M
= 26.80, SD = 3.199) to posttest (M = 27.70, SD = 4.069), was not verified for group
1 or the cognitive scaffolding group, t (29) = 1.506, p = .143 > .05. Furthermore, there
was not a statistically significant increase from pretest (M = 27.33, SD = 3.565) to post-
test (M = 27.56, SD = 3.180), in the control group, t (29) = .483, p = .633 > .05.
However, a statistically significant increase was found between pretest (M = 28.86, SD
= 3.380) and posttest scores (M = 30.46, SD = 3.963) in group 2 or metacognitive scaf-
folding group, t (29) = 2.898, p = 007 < .05, Eta = .22. According to Cohen (1988, pp.
284–287), the obtained Eta squared statistic (0.22) represented a large effect size.
To answer the third research question, a one-way ANOVA analysis was applied to see
whether there were significant differences among the three groups’ posttest scores. The
descriptive statistic results in Table 6 indicate that the posttest mean score of metacogni-
tive group was higher than that of cognitive and non-scaffolding groups. In order to test
the statistical significance of the differences, one-way ANOVA analysis was carried out;
however, prior to the conduct and interpretation of ANOVA analysis, the homogeneity of
the variances of the three groups was checked through Levene test, the result of which
showed no significant difference among the three groups’ variances (Table 7).
 12

Table 5. Paired-samples t-test analysis of the pretest and posttest scores of the two groups.

Paired differences t df Sig. Eta

(2-tailed) squared
Mean Std. Std. error 95% confidence
deviation mean interval of the
difference

Lower Upper
cognitive Pair 1 Pretest Posttest −.900 3.273 .597 −2.122 .322 −1.506 29 .143
metacognitive Pair 2 Pretest Posttest −1.600 3.024 .552 −2.729 −.470 −2.898 29 .007 .22
non-scaffolding Pair 3 Pretest Posttest −.233 2.648 .483 −1.222 .755 −.483 29 .633
Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 13

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the posttest scores of the three groups.

N Mean Std. Std. 95% confidence Minimum Maximum

deviation error interval for mean

Lower Upper
bound bound
cognitive 30 27.70 4.069 .743 26.18 29.21 22.00 36.00
metacognitive 30 30.46 3.963 .723 28.98 31.94 23.00 38.00
non-scaffolding 30 27.56 3.180 .580 26.37 28.75 22.00 34.00
Total 90 28.57 3.951 .416 27.75 29.40 22.00 38.00

Table 7. Test of homogeneity of variances of the three groups.

Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.

.784 2 87 .460

Table 8. One-way ANOVA analysis of the posttest scores of the three groups.

Sum of df Mean F Sig. Eta

squares square squared
Between groups 160.822 2 80.411 5.692 .005 .11
Within groups 1229.133 87 14.128
Total 1389.956 89

As is indicated in Table 7, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not vio-

lated, hence the application of ANOVA analysis was unproblematic (Table 8). As is evi-
dent in Table 8, there was a statistically significant difference among the posttest scores
of the three groups, F (2, 89) = 5.692, p = .005 < .05, Eta squared = .11. According to
Cohen (1988), Eta squared = .11 represents a moderate effect size leading to verified
differences among the mean scores of the three groups. In order to spot the exact location
of differences, Tukey HSD post-hoc test was applied (Table 9).
As is illustrated in Table 9, differences among cognitive and metacognitive scaffold-
ing groups (p = .015 < .05), and metacognitive scaffolding and non-scaffolding scores
(p = .010 < .05) were statistically significant, but the difference between the cognitive
scaffolding and the non-scaffolding was not statistically significant.
The relative efficacy of the cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding procedures was
further assessed through a semi-structured interview with a sample of the participants of
each respective group. The participants’ responses to interview questions were recorded,
transcribed, analysed, codified (open coding), and the most recurrent themes and catego-
ries of the responses were counted. The results are tabulated below in Tables 10 and 11.
The interview questions for the cognitive scaffolding group, the most recurrent themes
of the responses, their frequencies (N) and percentages are illustrated in Table 10. Table 11
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 9. Tukey post-hoc test of the posttest scores differences.

(I) groups (J) groups Mean Std. Sig. 95% confidence interval
difference (I-J) error
Lower bound Upper bound
*
cognitive metacognitive −2.766 .970 .015 −5.08 −.45
non-scaffolding .133 .970 .990 −2.18 2.44
metacognitive cognitive 2.766* .970 .015 .45 5.08
non-scaffolding 2.900* .970 .010 .58 5.21
non-scaffolding cognitive −.133 .970 .990 −2.44 2.18
metacognitive −2.900* .970 .010 −5.21 −.58

Table 10. Interview results of cognitive scaffolding group.

Questions Themes N %
1. What is your general Instructive 6 60
attitude towards the listening Pleasant 6 60
comprehension activities carried Innovative 1 10
out in your class? Challenging 2 20
2. H
 ow do you evaluate your listening I could have a real progress 3 30
comprehension development as a The activities led to positive feelings and 5 50
result of the activities? results
No change in my listening comprehension 2 20
3. H
 ow do you feel about your Effective 4 40
teacher’s asking you to provide a Engaging 3 30
transcript for the tasks? Challenging 2 20
Regular 1 10
4. H
 ow do you feel about your Highly essential 3 30
teacher’s provision of a transcript Quite essential 4 40
for the parts of the task? Facilitative 3 30
5. H
 ow do you feel about your Greater focus 2 20
teacher’s asking you to listen for Better comprehension 4 40
the main idea or a specific detail? Easier task performance 4 40
6. H
 ow do you feel about your Helpful for getting the gist 2 20
teacher’s asking you to write down Helpful for developing the ability 2 20
key words and concepts of listening Good for doing the task right 5 50
tasks? Good for avoiding confusion 1 10
7. Y
 our teacher selected some It led to a directed attention 2 20
important points of the listening It increased awareness 2 20
comprehension task to focus on, It was good for better learning 10 100
how do you think it affects your It raised my interest 2 20
listening comprehension?

summarizes the interview results for metacognitive scaffolding strategies group including
the questions, the most recurrent themes of the responses, the frequencies (N) and the
percentages.
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 15

Table 11. Interview results of metacognitive scaffolding group.

Questions Themes N %
1. W
 hat is your general Instructive 6 60
attitude towards the listening Pleasant 7 70
comprehension activities which Innovative 5 50
were carried out in your class? Encouraging 2 20
2. H
 ow do you evaluate your I could have a real progress 5 50
listening comprehension The activities led to positive feelings and 4 40
development as a result of results
the listening comprehension No change in my listening comprehension 1 10
activities?
3. H
 ow do you feel about your More attention to the task and increased 8 80
teacher’s asking you to think readiness
about the learning goal and Less mistakes 1 10
what you need to do? More novelty 1 10
4. H
 ow do you feel about your More clear purpose 4 40
teacher’s asking you to decide Better focus 6 60
about the way you are going to Reduced stress 2 20
do a listening task? Enhanced time management 1 10
5. H
 ow do you feel about your Better comprehension 7 70
teacher’s asking you to check Increased awareness of errors 7 70
your understanding and errors Consulting opportunities 2 20
during a listening task? Time consuming 1 10
6. H
 ow do you feel about your Effective for finding problem reasons 10 100
teacher’s asking you to check Good for finding problem solutions 4 40
the expected outcome of the Good for finding personal learning strategies 2 20
task and see if you need to
revise your plans or strategies?
7. H
 ow do you feel about Leads to taking important notes 6 60
your teacher’s asking you Helps planning for next tasks 5 50
to reflect on your listening Sharing metacognitive ideas 2 20
comprehension process?

As is evident in the tables above, it can be generally inferred that while the cognitive
scaffolding group interviewees were around average in their positive attitude towards the
strategies applied in their respective group, the metacognitive scaffolding group mem-
bers were evidently more satisfied with the scaffolding procedures and the resulting lis-
tening comprehension development than the cognitive scaffolding group members.

V Discussion
The study aimed at the investigation of the comparative efficacy of cognitive and meta-
cognitive scaffolding procedures for the EFL learners’ listening comprehension develop-
ment. Furthermore, attempts were made to explore the EFL learners’ attitudes towards
such scaffolding strategies. For the stated purposes, the first research question focused
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

on the efficacy of cognitive scaffolding strategies for EFL learners’ listening comprehen-
sion development. Although descriptive statistics revealed a small increase in the post-
test mean score of the group, the analyses did not verify the significance of the difference
between the pre and posttest mean scores. In other words, the impact of cognitive scaf-
folding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development was not
found to be remarkably noticeable. This finding seems to be generally in contrast with a
number of previous studies which of course addressed areas other than listening compre-
hension development. Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014), for example, verified that
cognitive scaffolding leads learners to probe into their own thinking and enables them to
answer questions and do tasks that they could not do without scaffolding. Smith and
Higgins (2006) also reported a faster progression level of the learners as a result of cog-
nitive scaffolding. On the other hand, studies which have confirmed lower efficacy of
cognitive scaffolding procedures have not been scarce. Dimassi (2016), for instance,
reported that compared to metacognitive scaffolding, cognitive scaffolding procedures
were not efficient enough and the learners preferred metacognitive scaffolding over the
cognitive one. A rather similar pattern of preference of the scaffolding procedures was
evident in the interview results of the current study. Generally speaking, the cognitive
scaffolding group interviewees were not overly excited about such procedures and
looked at them as only regular and instructive strategies. Only fifty percent of the inter-
viewees were pleased with them and while all participants acknowledged that the activi-
ties were somehow effective for their improved listening, only twenty percent believed
that the strategies were effective for raising their interest in the listening tasks.
The second research question addressed the effects of metacognitive scaffolding strat-
egies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The results indicated
that metacognitive scaffolding strategies were significantly effective for EFL learners’
listening comprehension development and compared to the cognitive scaffolding and
non-scaffolding strategies, they were the most efficacious intervention procedure. This
finding might mean that metacognitive scaffolding strategies helped learners to listen in
a more systematic and planned way. In other words, learners who received metacognitive
scaffolding tried to orient, plan, monitor, evaluate, and reflect on their listening tasks and
this enabled them to be more aware of their thought processes and gradually they devel-
oped a greater control over their listening comprehension processes. This finding seems
to reflect what Anderson (2002) called for where he suggested that the educators can help
students think about what happens during the process of learning and enable them to
build better learning skills. The obtained results in this regard might also indicate that the
metacognitive scaffolding strategies are more efficient for the progression of the EFL
learners from other-regulation stage to self-regulation stage of their listening comprehen-
sion development. In other words, such scaffolding procedures are more dialogic than
the cognitive scaffolding procedures.
The attested superiority of metacognitive scaffolding strategies lends a general sup-
port to the findings of studies like An (2010), Bulu and Pedersen (2010), Chen and Chan
(2011), Ge and Land (2003), and James (2010) which confirmed that metacognitive scaf-
folding improves college students’ academic success and that by modeling metacogni-
tive strategies instructors could engage students in the learning process. Roll et al. (2012)
concluded that metacognitive scaffolding is a powerful tool to help students better
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 17

understand the target features and set proper goals that lead to their development.
Anderson (2002) also confirmed positive impacts for the metacognitive strategies saying
that students become more prepared to decide about what they can do to improve their
learning. Concerning the reasons for the positive impact of such scaffolding strategies on
language learners’ listening comprehension, Goh (2008) maintains that the learners’
enhanced metacognition raises their awareness about how to listen and encourages them
to monitor their performance and evaluate the process of comprehension. Earlier, Flavell
(1979) had also proposed that metacognitive processes enhance the learners’ ability to
supervise and manipulate their cognitive processes and plan some actions to reach their
specific goals.
Moreover, our findings support those of Channa et al. (2018) who indicated that the
application of planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategies led to the learners’
improved comprehension of the texts, and enhanced their language abilities and profi-
ciency. In addition, studies have confirmed that metacognitive scaffolding strategies help
learners gain better collaborative task outcomes (Pifarre & Cobos, 2010), and complete
social metacognitive activities (Azevedo et al., 2008).
Having briefly referred to the studies which verify the positive effects of metacogni-
tive scaffolding strategies on various aspects of foreign or second language learning, it
needs to be admitted that some contrastive results are also reported in the literature.
Molenaar et al. (2011) for example concluded that the metacognitive scaffolding had no
significant effect on group performance and the domain knowledge the students gained;
however, they confirmed a significant positive effect on the metacognitive knowledge
the students gained. Bannert (2006), and Bannert et al. (2009) also concluded that meta-
cognitive scaffolding affects the quality of the domain knowledge not its quantity.
The third research question aimed at investigating the difference between cognitive
and metacognitive scaffolding strategies in their effects on EFL learners’ listening com-
prehension development. As stated above, the findings indicated that metacognitive scaf-
folding strategies superiorly affected the learners’ listening comprehension improvement
and the effect size gained for this superiority was found to be a moderate size. One justi-
fication for the higher efficiency of metacognitive scaffolding strategies over cognitive
scaffolding strategies might be sought in the kind of scaffoldings strategies the learners
in each group received. Learners in cognitive scaffolding group were required to think
about a situation, follow directions, and make decision concerning how to solve a prob-
lem or do a task, but the learners in metacognitive scaffolding group practiced to organ-
ize their thoughts and feelings without losing their concentration. They monitored their
own progress and modified their methods or strategies during the learning process. This
means that the EFL learners learned how to think about their own thinking and learning
processes and the teacher’s scaffolds helped them develop a metacognitive awareness of
and during the tasks. Partially suggesting a similar idea, Molenaar et al. (2011, 2014)
concluded that metacognitive scaffolding increased high quality intra-group social meta-
cognitive interaction and believed that metacognitive scaffolds provided learners with
more opportunities to practice higher order thinking activities. More importantly, they
maintained that when scaffolds are indirect they elicit regulative activities and are more
effective than the time that scaffolds regulate the groups’ collective cognitive activity
directly (Molenaar et al., 2011).
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

The analyses revealed that non-scaffolding strategy was the least effective procedure
compared to cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies. A plausible argument
concerning the superiority of metacognitive scaffolding strategies over non-scaffolding
procedure might be found in Vygotskian co-construction concept. Metacognitive scaf-
folding group members were engaged in intra-group co-constructive social metacogni-
tive activities, while the cognitive scaffolding group members preferred to focus more on
individualistic cognitive activities like note taking, getting the main ideas, etc. Likewise,
non-scaffolding group members were not involved in interactive co-constructive pro-
cesses either. Contrastingly, metacognitive scaffolding group members were more
attuned to other group members’ attempts and hence the co-construction of ideas and
meanings was even more encouraged. Confirming this idea, Chi et al. (2001) and Davis
and Linn (2000) believe that such metacognitive scaffolds elicit individual group mem-
bers’ metacognitive ideas and this triggers the co-construction of social activities.
The fourth research question explored the learners’ attitude towards the efficiency of
the cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding strategies for their listening comprehension
development. On the basis of the obtained results, both group members were generally
pleased with the given scaffolding strategies applied in their respective group. Around 60
percent of the interviewees of both groups generally believed that the strategies were
instructive. This reflects Yelland and Masters (2007) idea that successful teachers utilize
scaffolding strategies as instructional tools to assist learners to acquire abilities. In addi-
tion, a same 60 percent in cognitive scaffolding group and a slightly higher percentage in
metacognitive scaffolding group (70 percent) viewed the strategies as pleasant. This
finding might be partially justified considering the earlier studies’ recommendation that
delivering a high quality instruction in the form of scaffolding creates caring and positive
environments that enhance the academic development of all students (Raphael et al.,
2008) and shapes lifelong attitudes (Oxford, 2016). On this basis, even when the cogni-
tive benefits of the scaffolding procedures are not proved to be noticeable, the positive
attitudinal benefits of the assistance offered through scaffolding procedures help the ulti-
mate increased development potentiality of the learners. Such increased development
potentiality as a result of scaffolding procedures is attested to in recent studies. Ahmadi
Safa and Rozati (2017), Al-Yami (2008), Garcia and Asencion (2001), Guan (2014),
Helmar-Salasoo (2001), Mackiewicz and Thompson (2014), and Swain and Lapkin,
(2000) argued that scaffolding procedures significantly help EFL learners’ listening com-
prehension development and emphasized the power of using scaffolding to assist learn-
ers to improve their abilities, internalize ways to think, and become highly literate
thinkers.
On the other hand, while around 70 percent of the metacognitive scaffolding group
interviewees confirmed that the strategies were innovative and encouraging, surprisingly
only 10 percent of the cognitive scaffolding group members believed that cognitive strat-
egies were innovative and 20 percent regarded such strategies as challenging ones.
Similarly, Vandergrift (2002) admitted that when doing listening tasks learners who were
engaged in metacognitive strategies were more motivated to acquire metacognitive
knowledge that helped their self-regulation in listening. Vandergrift (2002, 2003) also
showed that students were motivated and in favor of collaboration with a partner to
monitor and predict listening comprehension tasks. Moreover, Goh (2000, 2002),
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 19

Mareschal (2002), and Ge and Land (2003) underscored the effective role of metacogni-
tive strategies for the learners’ successful listening comprehension and enhanced perfor-
mance in problem-solving activities.
Concerning the efficacy of the scaffolding strategies for the EFL learners’ listening
comprehension development, around half of the interviewees in metacognitive scaffold-
ing group maintained that they experienced a real progress in their listening comprehen-
sion as a result of the applied scaffolding strategies and around 40 percent believed that
the strategies had brought about positive results for their listening comprehension devel-
opment. This means that in sum 90 percent of the interviewees believed in the efficacy
of the metacognitive scaffolding procedures for their listening comprehension develop-
ment. On the other hand, only 30 percent of the cognitive scaffolding group interviewees
admitted that their listening comprehension experienced a real progress as a result of the
given strategies; however, around 50 percent of them believed that the strategies led to
positive feelings and results. On the basis of such findings, it seems justified to repeat the
idea that the scaffolding in general, whether of cognitive or metacognitive types, pro-
vides a caring and emotionally supportive environment and irrespective of the educa-
tional cognitive results, the positive atmosphere leads to the learners’ positive attitude
and emotional stance towards the scaffolding strategies which in turn will lead to their
educational development as well. Other studies have also shown that different forms of
scaffolds might cause different interactions among learners that support the collaborative
co-construction of new knowledge (Chi et al., 2001), and more engagement in each
other’s thinking (Iiskala et al., 2011) that are ultimately beneficial for their learning
(Weinberger et al., 2007).
Regarding the individual cognitive strategies which were applied in cognitive scaf-
folding group, around 40 percent of the interviewees considered ‘formal practice’ strat-
egy as effective, quite essential, and engaging. Moreover, around the same 40 percent
viewed ‘getting the main idea’ strategy as an activity which leads to better comprehen-
sion and easier listening comprehension task performance. On the other hand, concern-
ing ‘note taking’ cognitive strategy, while around 60 percent believed it leads to a proper
completion of the tasks, only around 30 percent considered the strategy as a helpful
activity for getting the gist, and 20 percent believed it was helpful for developing their
listening comprehension ability. Contrastingly, Garcia and Asencion (2001) reported that
scaffolding note taking strategy through sharing notes in small groups improved learn-
ers’ listening comprehension development. Finally, concerning ‘highlighting’ as the last
cognitive strategy which was applied in cognitive scaffolding group, all of the interview-
ees believed that its application leads to an improved learning, and around 20 percent
added that in addition to better learning, it directs their attention, increases their aware-
ness, and confirming Annisa and Sutapa (2019) raises their interest in the task.
Concerning the attitude of the metacognitive scaffolding group interviewees towards
the individual metacognitive strategies, it is notable that around 80 percent of the inter-
viewees believed that ‘orientation’ metacognitive strategy leads to increased readiness
for and attention to the task. Around 60 percent considered ‘planning’ as a strategy which
brings about a better focus. Anderson (2002) in this regard believes that to explain the
learning goals for the learners (orientation) and to encourage them to set their own learn-
ing goals (planning) promote learners’ preparation and they can measure their progress
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

more easily. An (2010) also showed that metacognitive scaffolds enabled students to
effectively decide about problem-solving plans. Moreover, 40 percent of the interview-
ees believed that planning leads to a more clear understanding of the task purpose.
Considering ‘monitoring’ strategy, about 70 percent viewed the strategy as an effective
one for a better comprehension of the listening task and increased awareness of errors.
Goh (2008) reported similar findings in this regard. He stated that metacognitive strate-
gies enhance learners’ development of listening skills by raising their awareness of their
listening, monitoring the listening process, and evaluating their comprehension. Almost
all of the interviewees in this group expressed that ‘evaluation’ metacognitive strategy
was quite effective for finding the reasons behind listening comprehension problems;
moreover, 40 percent added that the strategy is good for finding problem solutions.
Similarly, studies have shown that evaluation improves group performance by aiding
adaptation and revising group products (Phielix et al., 2011), and learning from group
member errors (Bozorgian, 2012). Finally, concerning ‘reflection’ metacognitive strat-
egy, around 60 percent believed it leads to taking important notes. In addition, around
half of the interviewees thought it helps planning for the next tasks. Similar findings are
reported by Zheng et al. (2019) who showed that metacognitive scaffolding strategies
like monitoring enabled learners to become aware of their learning progresses. In addi-
tion, evaluation and reflection helped the internalization of the metacognitive skills.

VI Conclusions
The findings indicated that among metacognitive scaffolding, cognitive scaffolding,
and non-scaffolding strategies, the least and most efficacious ones for the EFL learners’
listening comprehension development were non-scaffolding strategies and metacogni-
tive scaffolding strategies respectively. Concerning cognitive scaffolding strategies,
quantitative analyses results did not verify a strong positive impact for them; however,
qualitative analyses of the interview data revealed that such scaffolding strategies were
deemed to be instructive though not much efficient and exciting from the EFL learners’
perspective. On the other hand, both quantitative and qualitative analyses verified the
superior cognitive and affective impacts of the metacognitive scaffolding strategies. In
other words, metacognitive scaffolding strategies helped EFL learners to be more aware
of their thought processes and listen in a more systematic and planned way. Furthermore,
such strategies enabled the learners to develop a gradual control over their own listening
comprehension process. In more theoretical terms, metacognitive scaffolding proce-
dures were found more efficient for the progression of the EFL learners from other-
regulation stage to self-regulation. This in turn indicates that such procedures seem to
be more dialogic, constructive and efficient for the EFL learners’ ZPD-sensitive lan-
guage skills development. In addition, although both cognitive scaffolding and meta-
cognitive scaffolding groups’ interviewees were relatively pleased with the given
scaffolding strategies and viewed them as instructive, the metacognitive scaffolding
group members were more positive about the strategies and considered them as gener-
ally pleasant, innovative and encouraging. Such findings first imply that scaffolding
procedures whether of cognitive or metacognitive types provide the learners with an
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 21

emotionally positive attitude. Second, the metacognitive scaffolding strategies are even
more efficient for the development of the attested emotionally caring and constructive
atmosphere. Such a positive environment propels the language learners forward to
embark upon a constructive process of interaction, peer-scaffolding and mediation.
Finally, it needs to be stated that any generalization of this study findings to other
L2 contexts needs to be cautiously done due to a number of limitations. First, a true
random selection of the participants was not practically possible for the researchers
and this might adversely affect the generalizability of the findings. Second, the study
was limited to certain age groups and English proficiency level of the participants and
the extrapolation of the findings to other age groups and proficiency levels needs to be
carefully done.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was supported from Bu-Ali Sina University.

ORCID iD
Mohammad Ahmadi Safa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4161-7918

References
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assess-
ment (GDA) and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of
Language Teaching Research, 6, 37–56.
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Rozati, F. (2017). The impact of scaffolding and non-scaffolding strate-
gies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational
Research, 110, 447–456.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learn-
ing in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Al-Yami, S.A. (2008). The effectiveness of scaffolding interactive activities in developing the
English listening comprehension skills of the sixth grade elementary school girls in Jeddah.
Unpublished master’s thesis, King Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Available
at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520563 (accessed June 2021).
An, Y.J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 723–734.
An, Y.J., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design
problem solving and metacognitive skills in an online environment. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 552–568.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function during childhood. Child
Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82.
Annisa, A., & Sutapa, p. (2019). Scaffolding strategies to increase children science interest:
Advances in social science. Education and Humanities Research, 296, 279–284.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Greene, J.A., Winters, F.I., & Cromley, J.G. (2008). Why is externally
facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 45–72.
Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 35, 359–375.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device
in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.
Beheshti, Sh., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2020). Effects of audio-visually prompted collaborative dia-
logue on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39,
1–42.
Bozorgian, H. (2012). Metacognitive strategy instruction in English as foreign language (EFL)
listening skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Bulu, S.T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge
and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 507–529.
Channa, M.A., Nordin, Z.S., & Abassi, A.M. (2018). Metacognitive scaffolding in reading com-
prehension: Classroom observations reveal strategies to overcome reading obstacles of engi-
neering students at QUEST, Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 8, 131–140.
Chen, C.H., & Chan, L.H. (2011). Effectiveness and impact of technology-enabled project-based
learning with the use of process prompts in teacher education. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 19, 141–167.
Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring.
Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.
Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspec-
tive. Language Awareness, 19, 281–297.
Davis, E.A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflec-
tion in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.
Dimassi, A. (2016). EFL listening comprehension, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and
working memory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England,
Bristol, UK. Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29792 (accessed June 2021).
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.P., & G. Appel
(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 336). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2018). Handbook for the TOEFL junior standard test.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive develop-
mental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Garcia, P., & Asencion, Y. (2001). Interlanguage development of Spanish learners: Comprehension,
production, and interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 377–401.
Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured
task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51, 21–38.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems.
System, 28, 55–75.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System,
30, 185–206.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory,
practice, and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal,
60, 222–232.
Guan, Y. (2014). The effects of explicit listening strategy instruction on the listening comprehen-
sion of English as second language (ESL) community college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ahmadi Safa and Mottaghi 23

Helmar-Salasoo, E. (2001). Social context and instructional scaffolding in a literature based high
school classroom of English language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State
University of New York, Albany, NY, USA.
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition within
primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393.
James, I., (2010). The use of metacognitive scaffolding to improve college students’ academic
success. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7, 47–50.
Jumaat, N.F., & Tasir, Z. (2016). A framework of metacognitive scaffolding in learning authoring
system through facebook. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 619–659.
Khatib, M., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2011). The effectiveness of ZPD-wise explicit/implicit expert
peers and co-equals’ scaffolding in ILP development. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
14, 49–75.
Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning research: An exegesis. In
Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335–
354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2014). Instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaf-
folding in writing center tutoring. Composition Studies, 42, 57–78.
Mareschal, C. (2002). A cognitive perspective on the listening comprehension strategies of sec-
ond language learners in the intermediate grades. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Meijer, J., Veenman, M.V., & van Hout-Wolters, B.H., (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-
studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 12, 209–273.
Mevarech, Z., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths for innovative societies: The role of meta-
cognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. 2nd edition. London:
Routledge.
Molenaar, I., & Roda, C. (2008). Attention management for dynamic and adaptive scaffolding.
Pragmatics & Cognition, 16, 224–271.
Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collabora-
tive learning: A promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 309–332.
Molenaar, I., Chiu, M.M., Sleegers, P.J.C., & van Boxtel, C.A.M. (2011). Scaffolding of small
groups’ metacognitive activities with an avatar. International Journal of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning, 6, 601–624.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective perspective in L2: The effect
of random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oxford, R.L. (2016). Anxious language learners can change their minds: Ideas and strategies
from traditional psychology and positive psychology. In Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & J.M.
Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research, and educational
implications (pp. 179–199). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Phielix, C., Prins, F.J., Kirschner, P.A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social
and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection
tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1087–1102.
Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a
CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
5, 237–253.
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Poehner, M.E., & Infante, P. (2016). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transform-
ing second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 332–357.
Raphael, L.M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school class-
rooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 61–81.
Read, T., & Barcena, E. (2016). Metacognition as scaffolding for the development of listening
comprehension in a social MALL App. Revista Iberoamericanade Educación a Distancia
[Iberoamerican Journal of Distance Education], 19, 103–120.
Richards, J.C. (2011). Tactics for listening: Developing. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Roll, I., Holmes, N.G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided
invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710.
Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., & Koedinger, K.R. (2007). Designing for metacognition.
Applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking. Metacognition and
Learning, 2, 125–140.
Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 485–502.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task
effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second
language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.
Torrisi, G. (2018). Towards realizing twenty-first century skills: Deliberate scaffolding of meta-
cognition in instruction. In Wang, V.X. (Ed.), Handbook of research on positive scholarship
for global K-20 education (pp. 241–259). Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon University.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A
decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners. Foreign Language
Annals, 30, 387–409.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacogni-
tion in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 555–575.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process
of L2 listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425–440.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition
in action. New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wang, W. (2015). Learning to listen: The impact of a metacognitive approach to listening instruc-
tion. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 79–88.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative
learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yang, G. (2013). Incorporating sociocultural theory into English reading instruction: A unit plan
for Chinese EFL learners. US-China Foreign Language, 11, 859–869.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers &
Education, 48, 362–382.
Zeng, Y., & Goh, C. (2018). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its
impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 8, 193–218.
Zheng, L., Li, X., Zhang, X., & Sun, W. (2019). The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding
on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-sup-
ported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13–24.