Effect of Scaffolded Differentiation Strategies on Inferential Reading Comprehension and Receptive Vocabulary Improvement of Intermediate Students
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Masood Hasani
1
,
Ahmad Mohseni
2
,
Bahram Mowlaie
3
1 - English Department, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - English Department, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - English Department, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: scaffolding, Differentiated instruction, Receptive Vocabulary, Inferential Reading Comprehension,
چکیده مقاله :
This study tried to examine the effect of using scaffolded differentiation strategies on reading comprehension and vocabulary improvement of intermediate students. The effect of using scaffolded differentiation strategies on the reading strategy use of the intermediate students was also checked. The researcher selected 40 EFL learners with intermediate levels. They were mixed learners from the institutes in Tehran. Nelson proficiency test, screening test, diagnostic test, progress monitoring test, outcome test, and a close-ended questionnaire were used in the study. For the quantitative part, the selected students were randomly divided into four groups. Two were experimental groups and the rest were control ones. Each group consisted of 10 students. There were 15 sessions for the treatment. In the Experimental group the instructor used scaffolded differentiating strategies for improving the reading comprehension of the students and in the control group the teachers used ordinary methods. A test that subdivides the broad area into specific skills, in this case, inferential comprehension and receptive vocabulary was administered before and after the intervention. The questions were constructed in the related course of study. The result of the post-test showed that ‘Inferential reading’ and ‘Receptive vocabulary’ of the experimental group were noticeably greater than those of the control one. Data for the qualitative part was collected through the reading strategy inventory of MARSI (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). The reading strategy inventory was administered to 20 participants before the instruction and the instruction started, and after the instruction it was administered again. It consisted of 30 items that measured three factors: Global Reading Strategies (13 items), Problem-Solving Strategies (8 items), and Support Reading Strategies (9 items). The result of the posttest showed that the mean scores for the two subscales of ‘Global’ and ‘Supportive’ in the experimental group were noticeably greater than the mean scores in the control group but not for the other subscales of ‘Problem-solving’.
This study tried to examine the effect of using scaffolded differentiation strategies on reading comprehension and vocabulary improvement of intermediate students. The effect of using scaffolded differentiation strategies on the reading strategy use of the intermediate students was also checked. The researcher selected 40 EFL learners with intermediate levels. They were mixed learners from the institutes in Tehran. Nelson proficiency test, screening test, diagnostic test, progress monitoring test, outcome test, and a close-ended questionnaire were used in the study. For the quantitative part, the selected students were randomly divided into four groups. Two were experimental groups and the rest were control ones. Each group consisted of 10 students. There were 15 sessions for the treatment. In the Experimental group the instructor used scaffolded differentiating strategies for improving the reading comprehension of the students and in the control group the teachers used ordinary methods. A test that subdivides the broad area into specific skills, in this case, inferential comprehension and receptive vocabulary was administered before and after the intervention. The questions were constructed in the related course of study. The result of the post-test showed that ‘Inferential reading’ and ‘Receptive vocabulary’ of the experimental group were noticeably greater than those of the control one. Data for the qualitative part was collected through the reading strategy inventory of MARSI (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). The reading strategy inventory was administered to 20 participants before the instruction and the instruction started, and after the instruction it was administered again. It consisted of 30 items that measured three factors: Global Reading Strategies (13 items), Problem-Solving Strategies (8 items), and Support Reading Strategies (9 items). The result of the posttest showed that the mean scores for the two subscales of ‘Global’ and ‘Supportive’ in the experimental group were noticeably greater than the mean scores in the control group but not for the other subscales of ‘Problem-solving’.
Aliakbari, M., & Khales Haghighi, J. (2014). Impact of differentiated instruction strategies and traditional-based instruction on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 109-129.
Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy. Needham Heights, ma: Allyn &Bacon.
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies: Heinle & Heinle Boston, MA.
Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(1), 1-34.
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2007). Best Practices in Teaching Comprehension.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. Tesol quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16: A guide for social scientists: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional science, 26(1), 97-112.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1(3), 229-247.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2018). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. In The journal of the learning sciences (pp. 265-272): Psychology Press.
DeWeese, M. (2018). Strategy Group Differentiation: The Effect On Literacy Development Of Accuracy, Fluency, And Comprehension. University of South Carolina,
Elleman, A. M., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bouton, B. (2011). Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at risk of developing comprehension difficulties. Journal of learning disabilities, 44(4), 348-357.
Farhady, H. (2005). Language assessment: A linguametric perspective. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(2), 147-164.
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS:(and sex and drugs and rock'n'roll).
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of educational research, 71(2), 279-320.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Heinemann Portsmouth, NH.
Grabe, W. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. P., & Stoller, F. L. (2013). Teaching and researching: Reading: Routledge.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners: Corwin Press.
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 27-38.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 135-149.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2015). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties, 2/E: Guilford Publications.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language learning.
Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers. TESL-EJ, 4(4), 1-9.
Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. (2014). Introduction to action research. Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators, 3-33.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249.
Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 269-303.
Oxford, R. L., Ehrman, M. E., & Lavine, R. Z. (1990). Style wars: Teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom.
Pallant, J., & Manual, S. S. (2013). A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Australia: Allen & Unwin. doi, 10(1), 1753-6405.
Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510-522.
Robb, A. (2003). 40 Graphic Organizers that Build Comprehension During Independent Reading: Scholastic.
Safadi, E., & Rababah, G. (2012). The effect of scaffolding instruction on reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 1-38.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's journey. Gifted child quarterly, 39(2), 77-87.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction: Shared principles worth sharing. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 28-33.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. (2014). Assessment in a differentiated classroom. Proven programs in education: Classroom management and assessment, 1-5.
Tomlinson, P. (1999). Conscious reflection and implicit learning in teacher preparation. Part II: Implications for a balanced approach. Oxford Review of Education, 25(4), 533-544.
Uhl Chamot, A., & El‐Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children's learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-338.
Veenman, M. V., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and individual differences, 15(2), 159-176.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
