British Journal of Social Sciences

URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html

ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012

THE IMPACT OF SCAFFOLDING AS A STRATEGY FOR

TEACHING READING ON THE MOTIVATION OF IRANIAN L2 LEARNERS

Mohammad Amin Bassiri

Department of ELT, Ilkhchi Branch,

Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
PO box 54716-376,Tel: 98-412-332-6062
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
number of second language (L2) studies have recently discovered

A the positive impacts of scaffolding as a technique for teaching

reading. The current study followed three purposes: firstly to
examine the impact of scaffolding on reading comprehension in Iranian L2
classroom context and secondly to investigate the possible effects
implementing this technique on the motivation and attitude of learners and
finally to investigate the possible impact of gender as a moderator variable
between scaffolding and reading development. The results of the study
supported the initial predictions that scaffolding has a positive effect on
learners' reading comprehension and motivation scores. The findings also
point to a positive relationship between female learners' achievements in
comparison with males in term of their reading and motivation

Key Words: Scaffolding, Motivation, Reading Comprehension, Gender

 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
Introduction
Reading as one of the main components of second language (L2) classrooms is essential for the success of L2
learner. So, this skill receives a special focus in many second and foreign language teaching situations. Firstly
because many L2 students often have reading as one of their most important goals for information, pleasure, career
or study purposes. Secondly, written texts serve a variety of purposes enhancing language acquisition by providing
good models for introducing new vocabulary, grammar, idioms, and topics for discussion (Richards and Renandya,
2002). Consequently researchers and teachers must try to find more effective ways and strategies for teaching
reading. Although teaching is an art, it is also a science. Over the last several decades, great strides have been made
in understanding how to teach reading (Lutz, Guthrie, and Davis, 2006; Ghaith, 2003; Gibbons, 2002; Fitzgerald &
Graves, 2004; Bernhart, 1991; Cummins, 1991; Baumann and Duffy, 1997; Cramer and Castle, 1994; O'Brien,
1998). As a result of such studies, many facts about reading have been revealed to us. For instance, we know that
students need ample opportunities to practice the skills and strategies they are learning with a variety of texts and
genres .We also know that comprehension instruction should include attention to vocabulary development,
background knowledge, text structures, and thinking strategies. Moreover a number of specific teacher strategies
for building reader comprehension were identified and validated. These strategies center on the notion of providing
struggling readers with support as they learn how to read .Strategies such as questioning, discussion, and writing
serve as supports or scaffolds for struggling readers. The term scaffold is a Vygotskian metaphor for teacher
support of a learner through dialog, questioning, conversation, and nonverbal modeling, in which the learner
attempts literacy tasks that could not be done without that assistance . Roehler and Cantlon (1997) identified five
types of scaffolding: (a) offering explanations, (b) inviting student participation, (c) verifying and clarifying student
understandings, (d) modeling of desired behaviors, and (e) inviting students to contribute clues for reasoning
through an issue or problem. Additional effective scaffolds, especially for struggling secondary readers, are to
address the emotional aspects of learning and make learning benefits explicit (Brophy, 1999; Sanacore, 1997).In the
recent years, the positive impacts of scaffolding on reading ability of L2 learners have been the subject of few
studies (Kriteman, 2006; Fitzgerald &Graves,2004; Gibbon, 2002; McKenzie, 2011). The initial motive for the
current study is to conduct a similar study in Iranian L2 classroom context and secondly to examine the probable
effects of scaffolding on learners' motivation and thirdly to investigate the possible impact of gender as a moderator
variable between scaffolding and reading development.

Literature Review
2.1. Teaching Reading
Reading is the gateway to learning; without it, L2 learners cannot access a broad and balanced curriculum
(Clarke, 2009). This importance may be partly due to the recognition of reading as the most important skill in
academic contexts (Grabe, 1991) and partly because of the increase in the number of students who learn English as
their foreign or second language worldwide. Alongside with such increase in attention, there has been a long-
standing debate about the best methods for teaching children to read and researchers have had the desire to find an
optimal way to teach reading. As a result of such desire, different approaches to reading have appeared. Weaver
(1994) divides theses approaches to two large categories: part-centered (also called code-emphasis or bottom-up)
approaches, which view reading instruction as moving from learning the "parts" and building up the "wholes"; and
socio-psycholinguistic (also called meaning-emphasis or top-down) approaches which emphasize the overall
construction of meaning from connected or whole texts, and draw on the readers' and writer's schemata and
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
personal experiences. Part-centered approaches include phonics approaches, so-called linguistic approaches, a sight
word approach, and a basal reader approach. While the socio-psycholinguistic approaches include the Language
Experience Approach (LEA), literature-based approach, and whole language approach. However, in recent years
applied linguistics have began to move away from a preoccupation with the approaches and methods of language
teaching to a view that seeks to better understand the nature of language teaching and learning (Renandya and
Jacobs, 2002). Rather than introducing new methods and approaches of teaching, they are now more concerned
with describing language pedagogy that is based on principled understanding of the nature of second language
learning. One of such view which is based on the broad understanding of the nature of teaching is scaffolding, that
is to be viewed extensively in the next section of the literature review.

2.2. Scaffolding
From a sociocultural (Vygotskian) perspective, learning is a socially situated activity and what a learner at first
accomplishes only in a social setting; she or he will eventually be able to do independently (Lantolf, 2005). We
learn not as isolated individuals, but as active members of society, what we learn and how we make sense of
knowledge depends on where and when, such as in what social context, we are learning (Yang and Wilson, 2006).
This view of learning as a collaborative process was firstly defined by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) who coined
the term scaffolding. Since that time many researches (for example Burner, 1975; Cazden, 1988; Danto, 1994;
Ohta, 1995, 1997; Hammond, 2002; Daniels, 2001) have demonstrated the gains produced by scaffolding. Recent
works (Sahadi and Ghaleb, 2012; Pishghadam and Ghardiri, 2011; McKenzie, 2011; Mehdian, 2009) have
implemented scaffolding for teaching reading by creating the conditions where meaningful learning is fostered
requiring, an appropriate instructional strategy, where students need to elaborate, or generate activities, such as self-
questioning, semantic mapping, summary writing, monitor learning, and construct meaning from a reading text.
Such strategies can be considered effective in reading comprehension (McGriff, 1996). If provided with appropriate
assistance, students can attain a goal or engage in a practice or task that is beyond their reach. Reiser (2004) points
out that in scaffolding learners receive support and assistance to successfully perform certain tasks and move to
more complex ones. Without such assistance, these tasks would be beyond their ability; therefore, building on the
acquired experience and skills, students reshape their knowledge and improve their performance. Similarly, Vacca
(2008) suggests that when guided, supported, and provided with the necessary attributes, students become more
responsible for their learning, more motivated, and more successful. Instructional scaffolding is, therefore, an
effective model for teaching reading, and such an instruction influences the development of higher functions and
skills beyond the confines of a learner.Taken together, these studies reflect the importance and effectiveness of
scaffolding instruction on developing students' reading, and writing skills as well (e.g., using graphic organizers,
mapping, working in pairs and groups, questioning, thinking-aloud, planning, monitoring, evaluation, inference). In
sum, it can be concluded that scaffolding literacy enhances the students’ self-confidence, self-regulation, improves
critical thinking and higher order skills, and has an impact on the students’ progress and teaching practices. It is
also noted that oral questioning scaffold is evident in improving writing, but concerning reading comprehension the
advancement was questionable only in Anthony’s study (2007).
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
2.2.1. Implementing Scaffolding for Teaching Reading
Scaffolding can be presented in many ways for teaching reading, however similar to any other strategy its
success or failure depends highly upon its implementation by practitioners. Techniques used for scaffolding in
literature can be viewed as general techniques used for language teaching and specific ones used or defined for
teaching reading. Herrell and Jordan (2004) for example propose that there are two ways for teachers to scaffold
instruction with L2 learners; visual scaffolding and academic language scaffolding. Bradley and Bradley (2004) are
two other scholars who believe that scaffolding is an effective strategy for teaching content to L2 learners in
inclusive classrooms if teachers acknowledge the three types of strategies discovered the most effective for working
with L2 learners: (a) language should be simplified so that the students can understand; (b) teachers must make sure
students complete assignments and do not accept incomplete work; and (c) make sure an abundance of visuals are
used with L2 learners. Walqui (2006) is another researcher who believes that scaffolding instruction is good for
helping L2 learners get to where they should be academically. She identifies six main types of scaffolding
instruction in teaching English: (a) Modeling where the teacher uses verbal explanations and body language as
he/she elaborates and demonstrates the new material; (b) bridging where students activate prior knowledge. This
helps create a personal link between the student and the subject matter; (c) contextualizing which can be offered in
various forms; (d) schema building that can be defined as clusters of meaning that are organized and
interconnected; (e) re-presenting the text can be one of the ways to encourage students to start the appropriation of
new language; and (f) developing metacognition that refers to learners' awareness of their own knowledge and their
ability to understand, control and monitor their level of understanding and manage their thinking process in order to
decide when it is adequate.
Regarding the scaffolding strategies that are used for reading classrooms, Gibbons (2002) described strategies
and activities that mainstream teachers can incorporate into the classroom to help enhance reading skills through
scaffolding. Gibbons stressed that the activities used should serve two purposes: (a) to make sure the readers
understand what they are reading and (b) to the readers should know what ongoing strategies should be used with
other books. Some of the strategies that can be used to teach English Language Learners (ELLs) to read through
scaffolding pertain to lessons being taught before, during, and after reading a book (Gibbons, 2002). Fitzgerald and
Graves (2004) also described scaffolding as another way to teach L2 learners using texts which makes learners to
read easier because modeling is involved in teaching. Some of the alternatives they suggested for teachers to
implement using scaffolding for reading instruction can be examined under three headings: pre-reading, during
reading and post-reading activities. These three-phase strategies were also implemented in the current study, so they
will be elaborated on in the following sections.

2.2.1.1. Pre-reading Activities

According to Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) this level involves motivating - ask students questions or make
statements to interest students in a reading selection. Relate the reading to students’ lives - provide examples of
nonfiction materials to students. Build or activate background knowledge - provide examples of scenarios.
Introduced in the text in which students are not familiar. Use students’ native language - provide text in Spanish for
students to read (p. 16).
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
2.2.1. 2.During-Reading Activities
Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) suggested that teachers’ multi-task and monitor students’ reading as well as use
desired scaffolding strategy. Silent reading - students should be encouraged to read independently. This during-
reading activity was suggested to be critical for ELLs (Fitzgerald and Graves, 2004, p. 21). Another activity
suggested by Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) includes reading to students which can provide a good model for oral
reading. Supported reading can include many activities to focus on specific parts in the text, for example, main idea,
or different parts of speech in the text. Allow students to read text orally - this is helpful for teachers when trying to
assist ELLs with proficiency. Modify Text - the teacher can rewrite parts of a book to meet the needs of the English
language learner (p. 16). Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) also discussed the need for post-reading activities when
scaffolding ELLs reading instruction to provide an outlet for students to put together everything they have read.

2.2.1. 3. Post-reading Activities

It is important that teachers used questioning while instructing reading to ELLs. For example, according to
Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) teachers need to ask questions verbally or write questions down for students to
answer. Discussions can provide teachers with an insight on where students are with reading achievement level.
Writing will facilitate ELLs understanding of concept. Teachers should involve ELLs in hands-on learning such as
plays or skits. Fitzgerald and Graves (2004) noted how hands-on activities increase learning capacity because ELLs
need visuals.

2.2.2. Motivation and L2 acquisition

Dornyei (2002) identifies motivation as "why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to
sustain the activity [and] how hard they are going to pursue it." The initial impetus in L2 motivation research came
from social psychologists working in Canada, most notably from Wallace Lambert, Robert Gardner (1972), who
viewed second languages as mediating factors between different ethno-linguistic communities and thus regarded
the motivation to learn the language of the other community as a primary force responsible for enhancing or
hindering intercultural communication and affiliation. Since that time motivation has been a focus of SLA research
for many years (Gardner, 1985; Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Weddel and Van Duzer, 1997; Dornyei and Csizer,
1998; Dsrnyei and Kormos, 2000; Dornyei, 2002; Marshall, 2002; Bassiri, 2011).
Recent motivation related research looks at how instructional contexts also affect motivation by using varied
and challenging instructional activities helps learners stay focused and engaged in instructional content (Dornyei
and Csizer, 1998). In this way these studies look at instructional practices that teachers use to generate and maintain
learner motivation and strategies through which learners themselves take control of factors that have an impact on
their motivation and learning, such as lack of self-confidence, change of goals, or distractions (Dornyei, 2003;
Noels, Clement and Pelletier, 2003). The current study using a similar approach is an attempt to examine the
possible impacts of scaffolding on learners' motivation.
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
Methods
The participants of this study were 34 intermediate learners of English affiliated to an English language
institute in Iran. They were both male and female. They were chosen on the basis of their performance on a pre-test
administered among the intermediate level learners. Then, they were randomly divided into two groups of
scaffolding and non-scaffolding. They received one semester of instruction (17 sessions). At he end of each session
their reading comprehension were tested by quizzes whose average score were later used for the assessment of each
student' overall performance. The materials for the current study include placement test, source book (i.e., Facts and
Figures), the test for post-test and Gardners' (1996) attitude motivation battery test. This test was only administered
at the end of the semester. Finally multivariate ANOVA, as the statistical procedure, was used for examining the
effectiveness of the treatment on reading comprehension and motivation of the learners. This was done using the
SPSS (version 16) software.
Results

The first aim of the current study was to examine the positive impact of scaffolding on reading comprehension
in Iranian L2 classroom context and secondly to examine the probable effects of scaffolding on learners' motivation
and thirdly to investigate the possible impact of gender as a moderator variable between scaffolding and reading
development. So a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to examine the effect of scaffolding on learners'
motivation, reading comprehension and the possible impact of gender and interaction between them. As it is clearly
shown in table 1, 2 and 3 the experimental group outperformed the control group which didn’t receive the
treatment. With regard to reading comprehension scores the mean comparison of the scaffolding group (Total
M=16.5882, Female M=17.5556, Male M= 15.5000) and non-scaffolding group (Total M=14.9265, Female
M=15.6667, Male M= 14.0938) reveals that the experimental group has done better. These difference is also
significant (P=.010). The results also show that female participants outperformed the male significantly (p=.010),
but the interaction of gender and treatment wasn't statistically significant (p=.779). Regarding the motivation of
participants the results shows that the treatment is also effective however for motivation there is a trend towards
significance (p= .056).

Discussion and Conclusions

The results of the study supported the initial predictions that scaffolding has a positive effect on learners'
reading comprehension scores. These findings are in line with the previous studies (e.g., Walqui, 2006; Mehdian,
2009; Pishghadam and Ghardiri, 2011), confirming the claim that scaffolding can promote internal individual
learner variables like motivation and in this it can lead to learners' full engagement. As shown in the figure (1),
female learners had a better performance in comparison with the males, which was also evident during the study.
This fact may be due to their active participation during the research in comparison with males who seemed
somehow reluctant about the results of this new way of teaching. The main implication of the current study for
practitioners and language teachers is that it may be an answer for the question of engagement of language learners
within classroom. Language learners may have many backgrounds and many problems in their personal life which
might prevent them of becoming fully engaged in the teaching and learning process, so language teachers must try
to find innovative ways to promote learners involvement and engagement in the classroom.
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
References

Anthony, B. A. (2007). Making students’ writing Bloom: The effect of scaffolding oral inquiry using Bloom’s
Taxonomy on writing in response to reading and reading comprehension of fifth graders. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.

Bassiri, M. A. (2011). Interactional Feedback and the Impact of Attitude and Motivation on Noticing L2 Form.
English Language and Literature Studies,1(2), 61–73.

Benhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom
perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Baumann, J. F., & Duffy, A. M. (1997). Engaged reading for pleasure and learning: A report from the National
Reading Research Center. Athens, GA: NRRC.

Bradley, K.S., & Bradley, J. A. (2004). Scaffolding academic learning for second language learners. The
Internet TESL Journal, X (5). Retrieved 12 May, 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Bradley-Scaffolding.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for
particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85.

Bruner, J. & Sherwood, V. (1975). Peekaboo and the learning of rule structures. In J.S.
Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (eds) Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution (pp.
277-285). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinneman.

Cummins, J. (1991). Language Development and Academic Learning Cummins, J in Malave, L. and Duquette,
G. Language, Culture and Cognition Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cramer, E. H., & Castle, M. (Eds.). (1994). Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading
education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. NY: Routledge Falmer.

Dörnyei, Zoltán (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Peter Robinson (Ed.), Individual
differences in second language acquisition (pp. 137-158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dornyei, 2003 Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J,
Dought, & M. H. Long (Eds.),. Handbook of Language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 607– 612

Donato, R. ( 1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf

 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
and G. Appel, (Eds). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ:
Albex, 33–56.

Dörnyei, Zoltán, & Kormos, Judit (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance.
Language Teaching Research, 4, 275 –300.

Dornyei and Csizer, 1998; Dornyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Some dynamics of language attitudes and
motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462

Dornyei, 2002; Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition

Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance.
Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300

Fitzgerald, J., & Graves, M. F. (2004). Scaffolding reading experiences for English-language learners.
Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Gardner, 1985 Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Gardner, C. A. (1996). Attitude/motivation test battery: international AMTB research project. Retrieved
February, 10, 2008, From http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/englishamtb.pdf

Ghaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together-model of cooperative learning on

English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem, and
feelings of school alienation. Beirut, Lebanon: American University of Beirut.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly,
25(3), 375–406.

Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann

Hammond, J. (Ed.). (2002). Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown,
Australia: PETA

Herrell, A., & Jordan, M. (2004). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners.
(2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
Kriteman, Ruth F. (2006) Teaching English Language Learners Using Equal Doses of Scaffolding and Common
Sense. Retrieved January, 10, 2011, From http://www.ncacasi.org/enews/articles_feb06/teaching_ell_students.pdf

Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and L2 learning: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of second language research, ( pp. 335-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in learning:
An observational study of elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 3 –20

Marshall, B. (2002). Preparing for success: A guide for teaching adult English language learners. Washington,
DC, & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

McKenzie, (2011). The Impact of a Scaffolding Strategy on Elementary English Language Leaners’ Reading
Performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Minnesota,: Walden University.

Mehdian, N. (2009). Teacher’s role in the reading apprenticeship framework: Aid by the side or sage by the
stage. English Language Teaching, 2 (1), 3 –12.

McGriff, S. (1996). Using written summaries as a generative learning strategy to increase comprehension of
science text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania States University, Pennsylvania.

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2003). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French
Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 424–444.
O'Brien, D. G. (1998). Multiple literacies in a high school program for "at-risk" adolescents. In D. E.
Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in
adolescents' lives (pp. 27-49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ohta, A. S. 1995. ‘Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner–

learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied
Linguistics. 6/2, 93–121.

Ohta, A. S. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in learner–learner interaction’ in L.Bouton (ed.):
Pragmatics andLanguage Learning,Vol. 8. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, pp. 223–42

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The
Modern Language Journal, 78, 12 –2.

Pishghadam, R., & Ghardiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or asymmetrical scaffolding: Piagetian vs. Vygotskyan
views to reading comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education 7 (1), 4 –64.

Richards & Renandya (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student
work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3), 26 –278.
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
Renandya, W. and G. Jacobs. (2002). Extensive reading: why aren’t we all doing it?’ in J. C. Richards and W.
Renandya (eds.). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roehler, L.R., & Cantlon, D.J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K.
Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6-42).
Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Sahadi, E and Ghaleb, R.( 2012). The effect of scaffolding instruction on reading comprehension skills.
International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 6(2), 1–38.

Sanacore, J. (1997). Promoting lifetime literacy through authentic self-expression and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(7), 568–571.

Vacca, J. (2008). Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson about Buddha to sixth graders.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(8), 652–658.

Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From sociopsycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The
International Journal of Bilingual education and Bilingualism. 9 (2), 159–180.

Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury
House.

Weddel, K. S., & Van Duzer, C. (1997). Needs assessment for adult ESL learners. Retrieved May 22, 2012,
from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Needas.html.

Yang, L., & Wilson K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social
constructivist approach. An International Online Journal 6, 1-7. Retrieved July 1,
2007 from Education Research database.
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012

Table1: Descriptive Statistics

treatm gende Mean Std.

ent r Deviation N

reading ns f 15.6667 1.65831 9

m 14.0938 1.55803 8

Total 14.9265 1.75838 17

s f 17.5556 1.81046 9

m 15.5000 1.92725 8

Total 16.5882 2.09341 17

Total f 16.6111 1.94449 18

m 14.7969 1.84214 16

Total 15.7574 2.08211 34

motivation ns f 3.1444E3 565.93089 9

m 2.7750E3 651.92024 8

Total 2.9706E3 618.22802 17

s f 3.4222E3 494.41323 9

m 3.3125E3 670.68728 8

Total 3.3706E3 567.63182 17

Total f 3.2833E3 534.95464 18

m 3.0438E3 696.62879 16

Total 3.1706E3 618.66396 34

 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012

Table 2: Multivariate Tests

Effect Valu F Hypothesi Error

e s df df Sig.

Intercept Pillai's Trace .993 1.95 2.000 29.0 .000

a
5E3 00

Wilks' Lambda .007 1.95 2.000 29.0 .000

a
5E3 00

Hotelling's 134. 1.95 2.000 29.0 .000

a
Trace 845 5E3 00

Roy's Largest 134. 1.95 2.000 29.0 .000

a
Root 845 5E3 00

treatment Pillai's Trace .297 6.12 2.000 29.0 .006

a
6 00

Wilks' Lambda .703 6.12 2.000 29.0 .006

a
6 00

Hotelling's .422 6.12 2.000 29.0 .006

a
Trace 6 00

Roy's Largest .422 6.12 2.000 29.0 .006

a
Root 6 00

gender Pillai's Trace .274 5.46 2.000 29.0 .010

a
6 00

Wilks' Lambda .726 5.46 2.000 29.0 .010

a
6 00

Hotelling's .377 5.46 2.000 29.0 .010

a
Trace 6 00

Roy's Largest .377 5.46 2.000 29.0 .010

a
Root 6 00
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
a
treatment * Pillai's Trace .017 .252 2.000 29.0 .779
gender 00

a
Wilks' Lambda .983 .252 2.000 29.0 .779
00

a
Hotelling's .017 .252 2.000 29.0 .779
Trace 00

a
Roy's Largest .017 .252 2.000 29.0 .779
Root 00

Table 3: Tests of Between-Subject Effects

Source Dependen Type III df Mean F Sig.
t Variable Sum of Square
Squares

a
Corrected reading 51.846 3 17.282 5.684 .003
Model
b
motivation 1.989E6 3 663020.153 1.869 .156

Intercept reading 8355.910 1 8355.910 2.748E3 .000

motivation 3.391E8 1 3.391E8 955.956 .000

treatment reading 22.993 1 22.993 7.562 .010

motivation 1407553. 1 1407553.10 3.968 .056

105 5

gender reading 27.881 1 27.881 9.170 .005

motivation 486213.2 1 486213.235 1.371 .251

35
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012
treatment * reading .493 1 .493 .162 .690
gender
motivation 142847.2 1 142847.222 .403 .531
22

Error reading 91.214 30 3.040

motivation 1.064E7 30 354717.593

Total reading 8585.062 34

motivation 3.544E8 34

Corrected reading 143.061 33

Total

motivation 1.263E7 33
 British Journal of Social Sciences
URL: http://www.bjss.baar.org.uk /current-issue.html
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 32 – 46, October 2012

Figure 1: Treatment Effects for Experimental and Control Groups