An investigation into scaffolding in peers interaction by english majors at hue university college of foreign languages

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES HOANG PHUONG TRANG NHUNG AN INVESTIGATION INTO SCAFFOLDING IN PEER INTERACTION BY ENGLISH MAJORS AT HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2013 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES HOANG PHUONG TRANG NHUNG AN INVESTIGATION INTO SCAFFOLDING IN PEER INTERACTION BY ENGLISH MAJORS AT HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING CODE: 60140111 SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF DR LE PHAM HOAI HUONG HUE, 2013 i BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ HOÀNG PHƯƠNG TRANG NHUNG ĐIỀU TRA VỀ VIỆC HỌC CÓ TRỢ GIÚP (SCAFFOLDING) TRONG TƯƠNG TÁC GIỮA CÁC SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ HUẾ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH MÃ SỐ: 60140111 NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: PGS.TS LÊ PHẠM HOÀI HƯƠNG HUẾ, 2013 ii 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 Author Hoang Phuong Trang Nhung iii ABSTRACT This research paper investigated the second-year English majors‟ perceptions towards peer scaffolding and its use in peer interaction In addition, it focused on identifying the scaffolding features made by students in peer interaction The research was conducted with second-year English majors at Hue University College of Foreign Languages Data analysis involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches The data collection tools included questionnaire, audio recording, and interviews The students were invited to take part in completing the questionnaire Among these 100 students, 10 pairs of students were asked to talk with some tasks of given topics and all the conversations were recorded These students were also interviewed later to get insight into students‟ perceptions about scaffolding The findings revealed that students were in favor of scaffolding in peer interaction as they felt more comfortable to talk, shared ideas and assisted each other rather than the feeling unconfident and hesitative when they talked with teachers or in front of class The advantages and disadvantages of peer scaffolding which were included in the finding of the study were highly regarded by students Last but not least, the findings represented the scaffolding features made by students when they scaffolded each other Based on the findings, the study proposed some practical implications for teachers and students in teaching and learning speaking English using peer scaffolding iv Acknowledgements I am fully aware that my thesis can never be finished without the help of others during the process of writing Therefore, on this occasion I would like to express her greatest appreciation to the following: To begin with, I owe a debt of deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Le Pham Hoai Huong for her precious suggestions and whole-hearted guidance which help me fulfill this research paper I also feel beholden to students from Hue University Hue College of Foreign Languages for providing me the most favorable conditions to collect the needed information I would like to show my great appreciation to all teachers at the English Department of Hue College of Foreign Languages for providing me with necessary materials I also want to say a word of thanks to my closest friends, my dear colleagues in Laguna Lang Co for their support and encouragement throughout my ups and downs Finally and always, my sense of heartfelt gratitude goes to my family for their indispensable support for me to complete the study with all my best v TABLE OF CONTENTS SUB COVER PAGE i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP iii ABSTRACT iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS ix CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Scope of the study 1.4 Significance 1.5 Research questions 1.6 Organization of the study CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Scaffolding and its theoretical concepts 2.2.1 Vygotsky‟s sociocultural theory 2.2.2 The notion of the ZPD .6 2.3 Scaffolding .8 2.4 Peer scaffolding 10 2.5 Advantages and disadvantages of scaffolding 12 2.6 Scaffolding strategies and features 14 2.7 Studies on scaffolding 16 2.8 Summary .17 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.2 Research design 18 3.3 Participants and research sites 18 3.4 Data collection tools .19 vi 3.4.1 Questionnaire 20 3.4.2 Audio recording .21 3.4.3 Interviews .22 3.5 Summary .23 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 24 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 Findings from the questionnaire 24 4.2.1 English majors‟ perceptions towards scaffolding in peer interaction .25 4.2.1.1 English majors‟ perceptions towards Vygotsky‟s socio-cultural theory 26 4.2.1.2 English majors‟ perceptions towards the notion of ZPD 28 4.2.1.3 English majors‟ perceptions towards scaffolding and peer scaffolding 30 4.2.2 English majors‟ perceptions towards advantages and disadvantages of scaffolding 33 4.2.3 English majors‟ perceptions towards scaffolding strategies 35 4.3 Interviews with students 37 4.3.1 English majors‟ perceptions towards peer scaffolding 37 4.3.2 English majors‟ perceptions towards the advantages and disadvantages of peer scaffolding 39 4.3.3 English majors‟ perceptions towards scaffolding strategies 41 4.4 Audio transcriptions .43 4.5 Summary .49 CHAPTER CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 51 5.1 Summary of the key findings 51 5.2 Implications 52 5.3 Limitations of the research .53 5.4 Further studies 54 REFERENCES 55 APPENDICES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a Foreign Language L2: Foreign Language HUCFL: Hue University College of Foreign Language SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development viii LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS Table 3.1 Summary of data collection tools 19 Table 3.2 Summary of the questionnaire 21 Table 4.1 The mean score of the questionnaire .24 Table 4.2 The mean score of cluster .25 Table 4.4 Summary of students‟ responses to each item in the cluster 1.1 .27 Table 4.5 The mean score of cluster 1.2 28 Table 4.6 Summary of students‟ responses to each item in the cluster 1.2 .29 Table 4.7 The mean score of the cluster 1.3 30 Table 4.8 Summary of students‟ responses to each item in the cluster 1.3 .31 Table 4.9 The mean score of the cluster .33 Table 4.10 The mean score of cluster 35 Figure 2.1: Zone of proximal development Figure 2.2: The interaction between the learners/child and teacher/parents .8 Chart 4.1 Students‟ responses to advantages and disadvantages of peer scaffolding 34 Chart 4.2 Students‟ responses to scaffolding strategies 36 ix Q22 117,89 85,109 ,227 ,810 Q23 117,37 85,872 ,188 ,811 Q24 117,76 85,598 ,265 ,808 Q25 117,51 86,050 ,250 ,808 Q26 117,30 80,596 ,581 ,796 Q27 117,46 85,019 ,388 ,805 Q28 117,21 86,228 ,235 ,809 Q29 117,81 82,014 ,281 ,809 Q30 117,51 87,909 ,054 ,816 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 119,18 Std Deviation 84,068 N of Items 9,169 30 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Mean of ques 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 3,27 Maximum 4,77 Mean Std Deviation 4,0510 ,31500 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Mean of cluster 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 3,38 Maximum 4,69 Mean Std Deviation 4,0519 ,32312 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum N Mean of Cluster 1.1 N 100 Mean Cluster 1.2 Valid Nof(listwise) 100 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 Minimum 2,67 Maximum 5,00 2,75 5,00 85 Mean Std Deviation Mean Std Deviation 3,9533 ,50145 4,1000 ,47006 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Mean of Cluster 1.3 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 3,22 Maximum 4,89 Mean Std Deviation 4,0633 ,36056 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Mean of Cluster 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 3,00 Maximum 5,00 Mean Std Deviation 4,1060 ,41726 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Mean of cluster 100 Valid N (listwise) 100 3,00 86 Maximum 5,00 Mean Std Deviation 4,0189 ,41305 FREQUENCIES Cluster 1.1 Q20 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 5,0 5,0 6,0 neutral 18 18,0 18,0 24,0 agree 43 43,0 43,0 67,0 strongly agree 33 33,0 33,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q24 Cumulative Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 3,0 3,0 3,0 neutral 27 27,0 27,0 30,0 agree 60 60,0 60,0 90,0 strongly agree 10 10,0 10,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q27 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 12 12,0 12,0 12,0 agree 69 69,0 69,0 81,0 strongly agree 19 19,0 19,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Cluster 1.2 87 Q4 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 2,0 2,0 2,0 disagree 5,0 5,0 7,0 neutral 18 18,0 18,0 25,0 agree 44 44,0 44,0 69,0 strongly agree 31 31,0 31,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q8 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 5,0 5,0 6,0 neutral 6,0 6,0 12,0 agree 54 54,0 54,0 66,0 strongly agree 34 34,0 34,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q16 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1,0 1,0 1,0 neutral 10 10,0 10,0 11,0 agree 51 51,0 51,0 62,0 strongly agree 38 38,0 38,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q30 88 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 3,0 3,0 4,0 neutral 14 14,0 14,0 18,0 agree 57 57,0 57,0 75,0 strongly agree 25 25,0 25,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Cluster 1.3 Q2 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 13 13,0 13,0 13,0 agree 41 41,0 41,0 54,0 strongly agree 46 46,0 46,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q7 Cumulative Frequency Valid strongly disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 15 15,0 15,0 16,0 neutral 24 24,0 24,0 40,0 agree 44 44,0 44,0 84,0 strongly agree 16 16,0 16,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q9 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent 1,0 89 1,0 Cumulative Percent 1,0 neutral 4,0 4,0 5,0 agree 53 53,0 53,0 58,0 strongly agree 42 42,0 42,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q10 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 4,0 4,0 4,0 neutral 7,0 7,0 11,0 agree 49 49,0 49,0 60,0 strongly agree 40 40,0 40,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q14 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 6,0 6,0 7,0 neutral 20 20,0 20,0 27,0 agree 43 43,0 43,0 70,0 strongly agree 30 30,0 30,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q21 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 1,0 1,0 2,0 neutral 8,0 8,0 10,0 agree 36 36,0 36,0 46,0 strongly agree 54 54,0 54,0 100,0 90 Q21 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 disagree 1,0 1,0 2,0 neutral 8,0 8,0 10,0 agree 36 36,0 36,0 46,0 strongly agree 54 54,0 54,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q22 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent strongly disagree 3,0 3,0 3,0 disagree 3,0 3,0 6,0 neutral 32 32,0 32,0 38,0 agree 51 51,0 51,0 89,0 strongly agree 11 11,0 11,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q28 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 1,0 1,0 1,0 neutral 5,0 5,0 6,0 agree 55 55,0 55,0 61,0 strongly agree 39 39,0 39,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total 91 Q29 Cumulative Frequency Valid strongly disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 6,0 6,0 6,0 disagree 10 10,0 10,0 16,0 neutral 19 19,0 19,0 35,0 agree 36 36,0 36,0 71,0 strongly agree 29 29,0 29,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Cluster Q1 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 3,0 3,0 3,0 neutral 10 10,0 10,0 13,0 agree 37 37,0 37,0 50,0 strongly agree 50 50,0 50,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q13 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 9,0 9,0 9,0 agree 42 42,0 42,0 51,0 strongly agree 49 49,0 49,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q15 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 10 10,0 10,0 10,0 agree 58 58,0 58,0 68,0 strongly agree 32 32,0 32,0 100,0 92 Q15 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 10 10,0 10,0 10,0 agree 58 58,0 58,0 68,0 strongly agree 32 32,0 32,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q17 Cumulative Frequency Valid strongly disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 2,0 2,0 2,0 disagree 14 14,0 14,0 16,0 neutral 22 22,0 22,0 38,0 agree 47 47,0 47,0 85,0 strongly agree 15 15,0 15,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q18 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 6,0 6,0 6,0 neutral 18 18,0 18,0 24,0 agree 48 48,0 48,0 72,0 strongly agree 28 28,0 28,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q18 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 6,0 6,0 6,0 neutral 18 18,0 18,0 24,0 agree 48 48,0 48,0 72,0 strongly agree 28 28,0 28,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total 93 Cluster Q3 Cumulative Frequency Valid strongly disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 2,0 2,0 2,0 disagree 18 18,0 18,0 20,0 neutral 40 40,0 40,0 60,0 agree 24 24,0 24,0 84,0 strongly agree 16 16,0 16,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q5 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 5,0 5,0 5,0 neutral 9,0 9,0 14,0 agree 47 47,0 47,0 61,0 strongly agree 39 39,0 39,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q6 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent disagree 2,0 2,0 2,0 neutral 4,0 4,0 6,0 agree 42 42,0 42,0 48,0 strongly agree 52 52,0 52,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total 94 Q11 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 14 14,0 14,0 14,0 agree 52 52,0 52,0 66,0 strongly agree 34 34,0 34,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q12 Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent neutral 10 10,0 10,0 10,0 agree 43 43,0 43,0 53,0 strongly agree 47 47,0 47,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q19 Cumulative Frequency Valid strongly disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 4,0 4,0 4,0 disagree 23 23,0 23,0 27,0 neutral 36 36,0 36,0 63,0 agree 22 22,0 22,0 85,0 strongly agree 15 15,0 15,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q23 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent agree 3,0 3,0 3,0 neutral 16 16,0 16,0 19,0 disagree 43 43,0 43,0 62,0 strongly disagree 38 38,0 38,0 100,0 95 Q23 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent agree 3,0 3,0 3,0 neutral 16 16,0 16,0 19,0 disagree 43 43,0 43,0 62,0 strongly disagree 38 38,0 38,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q25 Frequency Valid disagree Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 2,0 2,0 2,0 neutral 12 12,0 12,0 14,0 agree 68 68,0 68,0 82,0 strongly agree 18 18,0 18,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total Q26 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent disagree 5,0 5,0 5,0 neutral 6,0 6,0 11,0 agree 50 50,0 50,0 61,0 strongly agree 39 39,0 39,0 100,0 100 100,0 100,0 Total 96 ONE-SAMPLE T-TEST One-Sample Statistics N MEAN OF QUESTRIAL Mean 100 Std Deviation 4,0510 ,31500 Std Error Mean ,03150 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t MEAN OF df 128,603 QUESTRIAL Sig (2-tailed) Difference 99 ,000 Lower 4,05100 3,9885 Upper 4,1135 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of cluster Mean 100 Std Deviation 4,0519 ,32312 Std Error Mean ,03231 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of cluster df 125,398 Sig (2-tailed) 99 ,000 Difference 4,05188 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of Cluster 1.1 Mean 100 Std Deviation 3,9533 ,50145 97 Std Error Mean ,05014 Lower 3,9878 Upper 4,1160 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of Cluster 1.1 df 78,839 Sig (2-tailed) Difference 99 ,000 Lower 3,95333 Upper 3,8538 4,0528 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of Cluster Mean 100 Std Deviation Std Error Mean 4,1000 ,47006 ,04701 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of Cluster df 87,222 Sig (2-tailed) Difference 99 ,000 Lower 4,10000 Upper 4,0067 4,1933 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of Cluster 1.3 Mean 100 Std Deviation Std Error Mean 4,0633 ,36056 ,03606 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of Cluster 1.3 112,694 df Sig (2-tailed) 99 ,000 Difference 4,06333 98 Lower 3,9918 Upper 4,1349 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of Cluster Mean 100 Std Deviation Std Error Mean 4,1060 ,41726 ,04173 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of Cluster df 98,404 Sig (2-tailed) Difference 99 ,000 Lower 4,10600 Upper 4,0232 4,1888 One-Sample Statistics N Mean of Cluster Mean 100 Std Deviation Std Error Mean 4,0189 ,41305 ,04130 One-Sample Test Test Value = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean t Mean of Cluster 98,629 df Sig (2-tailed) 99 ,000 Difference 3,76000 99 Lower 3,6844 Upper 3,8356