An investigation into teachers perceptions and use of scaffolding in teaching english at some primary schools in hue city

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES LE THI QUYNH ANH AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT SOME PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN HUE CITY MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Hue University of Foreign Languages HUE, 2016 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES LE THI QUYNH ANH AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT SOME PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN HUE CITY MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING CODE: 60.14.01.11 SUPERVISOR: Assoc.Prof.Dr Le Pham Hoai Huong HUE, 2016 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƢỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ LÊ THỊ QUỲNH ANH ĐIỀU TRA VỀ NHẬN THỨC VÀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG VIỆC HỌC CÓ TRỢ GIÚP (SCAFFOLDING) CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀO VIỆC DẠY TIẾNG ANH Ở MỘT SỐ TRƢỜNG TIỂU HỌC THÀNH PHỐ HUẾ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƢƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ SỐ: 60.14.01.11 NGƢỜI HƢỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: PGS.TS Lê Phạm Hoài Hƣơng HUẾ, 2016 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby acknowledge that this study is mine The data and findings discussed in the thesis are true, used with permission from associates and have not been published elsewhere Date: 25/ 06/ 2016 Signature Le Thi Quynh Anh i ABSTRACT This research paper was implemented to explore primary teachers‘ perceptions and use of scaffolding in teaching English at some primary schools in Hue city In addition, it also investigated the difficulties faced by teachers when using scaffolding in teaching Fifty English teachers from some primary schools in Hue city participated in this study The data collected from the questionnaires, interviews and audio recordings were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively The findings of the study revealed that most of English teachers had positive perceptions towards scaffolding They also shared their viewpoints about the advantages and disadvantages of scaffolding Besides, some scaffolding strategies were conducted efficiently in English classrooms such as showing an example, using visual aids and asking questions On the basis of the findings, some implications and suggestions are made with the hope that primary teachers will be in favor of scaffolding and use it in teaching English to young learners more effectively ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most importantly, I owe a major debt to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Le Pham Hoai Huong for her enthusiastic guidance and precious suggestions which help me fulfill this study I would like to express my great thanks to all English teachers from Hue primary schools, who provided an important basis and stimulus to collect the needed data for the research I am also grateful to the staff of librarians working in Hue University of Foreign Languages, who helped me assess the necessary and valuable materials for the fulfillment of the study Moreover, my deepest love and grateful acknowledgement go to my family, my friends for their endless support, encouragement and care which help me overcome all difficulties during the time I conducted this study In a word, my sincere gratitude goes to all of those without whose support my study is far from being finished iii TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS vi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION vi 1.1 Rationale 1.2.Research aims 1.3.Research questions 1.4.Significance of the research 1.5.Research scope 1.6.Structure of the research CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW .5 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Scaffolding and its theoretical concepts .5 2.2.1.Socio-cultural theory 2.2.2.The notion of the ZPD 2.3.Scaffolding 2.3.1 Scaffolding features 10 2.3.2 Scaffolding strategies 12 2.3.3 Scaffolding young learners .15 2.4 Previous studies on scaffolding 16 2.5 Summary 18 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY .19 3.1 Introduction 19 3.2.Research design 19 3.3.Participants and research sites .19 3.4.Instruments for data collection 20 iv 3.4.1.Questionnaire 20 3.4.2.Interview 22 3.4.3.Audio recording .22 3.5 Data analysis 23 3.6 Summary 23 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 24 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions of scaffolding .24 4.2.1 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions towards scaffolding in teaching English 25 4.2.1.1 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions towards socio-cultural theory .26 4.2.1.2 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions towards the notion of ZPD .27 4.2.2 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions towards advantages and disadvantages of using scaffolding 33 4.2.3 Primary English teachers‘ perceptions towards scaffolding strategies .37 4.2.4 Difficulties faced by primary English teachers when using scaffolding 40 4.3 Primary English teachers‘ use of scaffolding 41 CHAPTER IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION 53 5.1 Summary of key findings 53 5.2 Pedagogical implications 54 5.3 Limitations of the study .55 5.4 Suggestions for further research .55 REFERENCES 56 APPENDICES v LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS Table 3.1 Summary of data collection tools 20 Table 3.2 Summary of questionnaire .21 Table 4.1 The mean score of the questionnaire .24 Table 4.2 The mean score of cluster .25 Table 4.3 The mean score of cluster 1.1 26 Table 4.4 Summary of primary English teachers‘ responses to each item in cluster 1.1 27 Table 4.5 The mean score of cluster 1.2 27 Table 4.6 Summary of primary English teachers‘ responses to each item in cluster 1.2 28 Table 4.7 The mean score of cluster 1.3 29 Table 4.8 Summary of primary English teachers‘ responses to each item in cluster 1.3 30 Table 4.9 The mean score of cluster .33 Table 4.10 The mean score of cluster 37 Figure 2.1 Zone of Proximal Development .6 Figure 2.2 The interaction between the teacher/ parent and learner/ child Chart 4.1 Primary English teachers‘ responses to advantages and disadvantages of using scaffolding .34 Chart 4.2 Primary English teachers‘ responses to scaffolding strategies 38 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale Nowadays, English is one of the predominant languages used all over the world It is used as a means of international communication among the speakers of other languages in various fields such as medicine, science and technology, business, etc Accordingly, English has achieved a special position in the world as a global language, and thus, learning English is increasingly necessary for the country development Learning English as a second language is more and more paid attention, especially as for young learners As Scott (2003) mentions, the importance of teaching English to young learners has been specially emphasized in recent years English has become a compulsory subject at most schools in the world in general and in Vietnam in particular Therefore, it is really important and necessary to raise teaching quality of classes and the language competence of learners through real contexts, authentic materials, and to introduce the knowledge of English subject to students in easier-understanding and more creative way In order to teach English to children well, teachers have to focus on the characteristics of young learners and their learning styles that affect the second language acquisition According to Vygotsky (1962), children learn through social interaction Children construct knowledge through other people, through interaction with adults In his theory of child development, Lev Vygotsky proposed the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), a region where they acquire new skills more readily with the assistance of someone more knowledgeable than themselves (Berk 2001; Vygotsky 1962) Therefore, young children need assistance as they attempt new tasks and seek to master familiar ones Moreover, the adult‘s role is very important in a child‘s learning process Teacher aids children in their efforts by scaffolding experiences, using a collection of strategies named for their resemblance to the temporary construction sites structures (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976) Like Vygotsky, Bruner (1983) said that children learn effectively Descriptive Statistics N Mean of ques 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 2.77 Maximum 4.63 Mean 3.95 Std Deviation 38932 Descriptive Statistics N Mean of cluster1 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 3.00 Maximum 4.54 Mean 3.92 Std Deviation 38002 Descriptive Statistics N Mean of Cluster 1.1 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 3.00 Maximum 5.00 Mean 4.12 Std Deviation 45804 Descriptive Statistics N Mean of Cluster 1.2 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Descriptive Statistics N Mean of Cluster 1.3 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 2.63 Maximum 4.50 Mean 3.83 Std Deviation 41144 Descriptive Statistics N Mean of Cluster2 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 2.14 Maximum 4.57 Mean 3.87 Std Deviation 54581 Descriptive Statistics N Mean of Cluster3 50 Valid N (listwise) 50 Minimum 2.90 Maximum 5.00 Mean 4.05 Std Deviation 46346 FREQUENCIES Cluster 1.1 Q6 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 14.0 14.0 14.0 Neutral 8.0 8.0 22.0 Agree 22 44.0 44.0 66.0 Strongly agree 17 34.0 34.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q11 Frequency Neutral Agree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 14.0 14.0 14.0 38 76.0 76.0 90.0 10.0 10.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Cluster 1.2 Q4 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Neutral 10 20.0 20.0 20.0 Agree 33 66.0 66.0 86.0 14.0 14.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Q7 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Neutral 6.0 6.0 10.0 41 82.0 82.0 92.0 8.0 8.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Agree Strongly agree Total Q9 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 10.0 10.0 10.0 Neutral 14.0 14.0 24.0 Agree 13 26.0 26.0 50.0 Strongly agree 25 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Cluster 1.3 Q1 Frequency Strongly disagree Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 2.0 2.0 2.0 Neutral 10 20.0 20.0 22.0 Agree 36 72.0 72.0 94.0 6.0 6.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Strongly agree Total Q2 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Disagree 8.0 8.0 12.0 Neutral 12.0 12.0 24.0 29 58.0 58.0 82.0 18.0 18.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Agree Strongly agree Total Q3 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Neutral 16.0 16.0 20.0 Agree 28 56.0 56.0 76.0 Strongly agree 12 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q14 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 8.0 8.0 10.0 Neutral 14 28.0 28.0 38.0 Agree 30 60.0 60.0 98.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Q15 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Neutral 10 20.0 20.0 20.0 Agree 37 74.0 74.0 94.0 6.0 6.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Q23 Frequency Neutral Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 10.0 10.0 10.0 Agree 23 46.0 46.0 56.0 Strongly agree 22 44.0 44.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q24 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 6.0 6.0 8.0 Neutral 10 20.0 20.0 28.0 Agree 27 54.0 54.0 82.0 18.0 18.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Q27 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Disagree 16.0 16.0 20.0 Valid Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total 4.0 4.0 24.0 36 72.0 72.0 96.0 4.0 4.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Cluster Q5 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Disagree 6.0 6.0 10.0 Neutral 18.0 18.0 28.0 Agree 24 48.0 48.0 76.0 Strongly agree 12 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q8 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 12.0 12.0 14.0 Neutral 12.0 12.0 26.0 Agree 18 36.0 36.0 62.0 Strongly agree 19 38.0 38.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q10 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 Disagree 6.0 6.0 14.0 Neutral 16.0 16.0 30.0 29 58.0 58.0 88.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Agree Strongly agree Total Q12 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Neutral 10.0 10.0 10.0 Agree 16.0 16.0 26.0 Strongly agree 37 74.0 74.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q25 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 14.0 14.0 14.0 Neutral 10.0 10.0 24.0 Agree 28 56.0 56.0 80.0 Strongly agree 10 20.0 20.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q26 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 8.0 8.0 8.0 Neutral 13 26.0 26.0 34.0 Agree 27 54.0 54.0 88.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Strongly agree Total Q30 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 10 20.0 20.0 20.0 Neutral 16 32.0 32.0 52.0 18.0 18.0 70.0 Strongly agree 15 30.0 30.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Agree Cluster Q13 Frequency Neutral Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 16.0 16.0 16.0 Agree 16 32.0 32.0 48.0 Strongly agree 26 52.0 52.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q16 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 6.0 6.0 6.0 Neutral 18.0 18.0 24.0 30 60.0 60.0 84.0 16.0 16.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Agree Strongly agree Total Q17 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 2.0 2.0 4.0 Neutral 16.0 16.0 20.0 31 62.0 62.0 82.0 18.0 18.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Agree Strongly agree Total Q18 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Disagree 10.0 10.0 14.0 Neutral 12.0 12.0 26.0 31 62.0 62.0 88.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Agree Strongly agree Total Q19 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 6.0 6.0 6.0 Neutral 10.0 10.0 16.0 Agree 12 24.0 24.0 40.0 Strongly agree 30 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q20 Frequency Neutral Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 16.0 16.0 16.0 Agree 21 42.0 42.0 58.0 Strongly agree 21 42.0 42.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Q21 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Neutral 14.0 14.0 16.0 Agree 18 36.0 36.0 52.0 Strongly agree 24 48.0 48.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q22 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 8.0 8.0 10.0 Neutral 10 20.0 20.0 30.0 Agree 29 58.0 58.0 88.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 50 100.0 100.0 Valid Strongly agree Total Q28 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 4.0 4.0 4.0 Neutral 14.0 14.0 18.0 Agree 26 52.0 52.0 70.0 Strongly agree 15 30.0 30.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Q29 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 2.0 Disagree 6.0 6.0 8.0 Neutral 14.0 14.0 22.0 Agree 26 52.0 52.0 74.0 Strongly agree 13 26.0 26.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 Valid ONE-SAMPLE T-TEST One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean MEAN OF 50 QUESTRIAL 3.9520 38932 05506 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of Difference the Difference Lower MEAN OF QUESTRIAL 71.778 49 000 3.95200 3.84136 Upper 4.06264 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Mean.of.cluster 50 3.9200 38002 05374 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2- Mean 95% Confidence Interval of tailed) Difference the Difference Lower Mean.of.cluster1 72.939 49 000 3.92000 3.8120 Upper 4.0280 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Cluster1.1 50 4.1200 45804 06478 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of Difference the Difference Lower Cluster1.1 63.604 49 000 4.12000 Upper 3.9899 4.2502 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Cluster1.2 50 4.0133 53009 07497 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Difference Lower Cluster1.2 53.535 49 000 4.01333 3.8627 Upper 4.1640 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Cluster1.3 50 3.8350 41144 05819 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Difference Lower Cluster1.3 65.908 49 000 3.83500 Upper 3.7181 3.9519 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Cluster2 50 3.8743 54581 07719 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Difference Lower Cluster2 50.192 49 000 3.87429 3.7192 Upper 4.0294 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Cluster3 50 4.0480 46346 06554 One-Sample Test Test Value = t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Difference Lower Cluster3 61.761 49 000 4.04800 3.9163 Upper 4.1797