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.
Ahmadi SafaM.BeheshtiS. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6, 37–56.
2.
Ahmadi SafaM.RozatiF. (2017). The impact of scaffolding and non-scaffolding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational Research, 110, 447–456.
3.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
4.
Al-YamiS.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).
5.
AnY.J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 723–734.
6.
AnY.J.CaoL. (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.
7.
AndersonP. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82.
8.
AnnisaA.Sutapap. (2019). Scaffolding strategies to increase children science interest: Advances in social science. Education and Humanities Research, 296, 279–284.
9.
AzevedoR.MoosD.C.GreeneJ.A.WintersF.I.CromleyJ.G. (2008). Why is externally facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 45–72.
10.
BannertM. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 359–375.
11.
BannertM.HildebrandM.MengelkampC. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.
12.
BeheshtiSh.Ahmadi SafaM. (2020). Effects of audio-visually prompted collaborative dialogue on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39, 1–42.
13.
BozorgianH. (2012). Metacognitive strategy instruction in English as foreign language (EFL) listening skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
14.
BuluS.T.PedersenS. (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.
15.
ChannaM.A.NordinZ.S.AbassiA.M. (2018). Metacognitive scaffolding in reading comprehension: Classroom observations reveal strategies to overcome reading obstacles of engineering students at QUEST, Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8, 131–140.
16.
ChenC.H.ChanL.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.
17.
ChiM.T.H.SilerS.JeongH.HausmannR. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.
18.
CrossJ. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness, 19, 281–297.
19.
DavisE.A.LinnM. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.
20.
DimassiA. (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).
21.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 336). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22.
DornyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2018). Handbook for the TOEFL junior standard test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24.
FlavellJ.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
25.
GarciaP.AsencionY. (2001). Interlanguage development of Spanish learners: Comprehension, production, and interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 377–401.
26.
GeX.LandS.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.
27.
GohC. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75.
28.
GohC. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30, 185–206.
29.
GohC. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice, and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213.
30.
GohC.TaibY. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222–232.
31.
GuanY. (2014). The effects of explicit listening strategy instruction on the listening comprehension of English as second language (ESL) community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
32.
Helmar-SalasooE. (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.
33.
IiskalaT.VaurasM.LehtinenE.SalonenP. (2011). Socially shared metacognition within primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393.
34.
JamesI., (2010). The use of metacognitive scaffolding to improve college students’ academic success. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7, 47–50.
35.
JumaatN.F.TasirZ. (2016). A framework of metacognitive scaffolding in learning authoring system through facebook. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 619–659.
36.
KhatibM.Ahmadi SafaM. (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.
37.
LantolfJ.P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning research: An exegesis. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
MackiewiczJ.ThompsonI. (2014). Instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding in writing center tutoring. Composition Studies, 42, 57–78.
40.
MareschalC. (2002). A cognitive perspective on the listening comprehension strategies of second language learners in the intermediate grades. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
41.
MeijerJ.VeenmanM.V.van Hout-WoltersB.H., (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209–273.
42.
MevarechZ.KramarskiB. (2014). Critical maths for innovative societies: The role of metacognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
43.
MitchellR.MylesF. (2004). Second language learning theories. 2nd edition.London: Routledge.
44.
MolenaarI.RodaC. (2008). Attention management for dynamic and adaptive scaffolding. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16, 224–271.
45.
MolenaarI.SleegersP.van BoxtelC. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: A promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 309–332.
46.
MolenaarI.ChiuM.M.SleegersP.J.C.van BoxtelC.A.M. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups’ metacognitive activities with an avatar. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601–624.
47.
NassajiH.SwainM. (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.
48.
OhtaA.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
OxfordR.L. (2016). Anxious language learners can change their minds: Ideas and strategies from traditional psychology and positive psychology. In GkonouC.DaubneyM.DewaeleJ.M. (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research, and educational implications (pp. 179–199). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
50.
PhielixC.PrinsF.J.KirschnerP.A.ErkensG.JaspersJ. (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.
51.
PifarreM.CobosR. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 237–253.
52.
PoehnerM.E.InfanteP. (2016). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 332–357.
53.
RaphaelL.M.PressleyM.MohanL. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 61–81.
54.
ReadT.BarcenaE. (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.
55.
RichardsJ.C. (2011). Tactics for listening: Developing. 3rd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RollI.AlevenV.McLarenB.M.KoedingerK.R. (2007). Designing for metacognition. Applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 125–140.
58.
SmithH.HigginsS. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 485–502.
59.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2000). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.
60.
TorrisiG. (2018). Towards realizing twenty-first century skills: Deliberate scaffolding of metacognition in instruction. In WangV.X. (Ed.), Handbook of research on positive scholarship for global K-20 education (pp. 241–259). Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon University.
61.
Van de PolJ.VolmanM.BeishuizenJ. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
62.
VandergriftL. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409.
63.
VandergriftL. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 555–575.
64.
VandergriftL. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425–440.
65.
VandergriftL.GohC. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.
66.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68.
WangW. (2015). Learning to listen: The impact of a metacognitive approach to listening instruction. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 79–88.
69.
WeinbergerA.StegmannK.FischerF. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.
70.
WoodD.BrunerJ.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
71.
YangG. (2013). Incorporating sociocultural theory into English reading instruction: A unit plan for Chinese EFL learners. US-China Foreign Language, 11, 859–869.
72.
YellandN.MastersJ. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48, 362–382.
73.
ZengY.GohC. (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.
74.
ZhengL.LiX.ZhangX.SunW. (2019). The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13–24.
