Using Speaking Frames as Scaffolding Tools to Teach University Students to Speak in ESP

Nataliia Saienko, Iryna Nazarenko

Abstract


This paper deals with the issue of using speaking frames as scaffolding tools for teaching software engineering students to speak in an ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course. We believe that students’ knowledge of the process of learning, and developing their metacognitive skills, may influence their learning outcomes greatly. So, in the study, we used frames as generalized scaffolds, with the idea that, by assigning meanings to objects, images and representations, we could manipulate cognitive functions, such as remembering, perceiving and concentrating, which, in turn, could influence speaking production positively. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of using frames as knowledge representation elements for improving speaking skills of software engineering students in an ESP course, as well as determining the attitudes of these students to using speaking frames for developing their speaking skills. We applied the hypothesis that the quality of students’ monologues may increase considerably if they practiced using scaffolding tools such as speaking frames on a regular basis. We used a mixed research design, and combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative approach was aimed at collecting data about students’ attitudes to using speaking frames while developing professional communicative competence in spoken production. For that purpose, we used a questionnaire for students, containing open- and closed-ended questions. The quantitative approach was focused on evaluating the effectiveness of using speaking frames in experimental learning, by comparing the students’ monologue speeches before and after the experimental learning using speaking frames. The study took place in 2019–2020 and involved 41 third-year students of Heat and Power engineering faculty of the National Technical University of Ukraine Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. The results of the study show that the use of speaking frames enabled a significant increase in the number of students who demonstrated a sufficient level of speaking competence. Using frames helped students to reduce repetitions, hesitations, false starts and pauses, and to significantly increase the number of continuous utterances while delivering monologues. The use of speaking frames contributed not only to the improvement of grammar accuracy and formation of lexical fields, but also to the structuring of students’ speech.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.4.6


Keywords


speaking skills; English for Specific Purposes; scaffolding; speaking frames; software engineering students

Full Text:

PDF

References


Afitska, O. (2015). Scaffolding learning: developing materials to support the learning of science and language by non-native English-speaking students. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1090993

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064

Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner centered classroom: sociocultural perspectives on teacher learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00024

Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. J., & Skrzypiec, G. (2011). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in regular class lessons. Instructional Science, 40(2), 413–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9182-5

Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. J., & Skrzypiec, G. (2012). Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire. PsycTESTS Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t39555-000

Casañ-Pitarch, R., Candel-Mora, M., Carrió-Pastor, M., Demydenko, O., & Tikan, I. (2020). Enhancing language and cross-cultural competence through telecollaboration. Advanced Education, 7(16), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.214539

Cudd, E., & Roberts, L. (1993). A scaffolding technique to develop sentence sense and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 346–349. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201260

Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (1992). Discourse perspectives on formal instruction. Language Awareness, 1(2), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1992.9959807

Donnelly, W. B., & Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.64.2.5

Fischer, К. (2011). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Grammar and Interaction, 2(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis

Fisher, R.A. (1992). Statistical methods for research workers. In S. Kotz, & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Breakthroughs in statistics (pp. 66–70). Springer Series in Statistics (Perspectives in Statistics). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_6

Gilbert, J., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29039-3.

Gonulal, T., & Loewen, S. (2018). Scaffolding technique. In J. I. Liontas & TESOL International Association (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–5). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0180

Graziotin, D., Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2014). Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering. PeerJ, 2, e289. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.289

Hong, L., Wei, Y., Guanghua, W., & Wanxia, C. (2011). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A case study in two oral English classes in China. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal.2011.026

Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070324

Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_3

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge.

Lavrysh, Y., Lytovchenko, І., & Lukianenko, V. (2020). Ecocomposition integration into ESP course for Bachelors at a technical university. The MEXTESOL Journal, 44(1), 1–16. http://mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=17045

Li, D. (2012). Scaffolding adult learners of English in learning target form in a Hong Kong EFL university classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.626858

Lytovchenko, I., Ogienko, O., Sbruieva, A., & Sotska, H. (2018). Teaching English for Specific Purposes to adult learners at university: methods that work. Advanced Education, 5(10), 69–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.149741

Мammadov, N., Sokolova, S., & Kholiavko, N. (2019). Development of students’ foreign language communicative competence in context of internationalisation and informatisation of higher education. Advanced Education, 6(11), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.155501

Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286

Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). 'Scaffolding': Learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 186–195). Hodder & Stoughton.

Minsky, M. (1988). A framework for representing knowledge. In A. Collins, & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science. A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 156–189). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50018-2

Palmer, S. (2010). Speaking frames: How to teach talk for writing: Ages 10–14. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846360

Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). “Scaffolding†through talk in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(2), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.002

Poehner, M. E. (2018). Scaffolding and the development of L2 grammar. In J. I. Liontas & TESOL International Association (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0098

Saienko, N. (2017). Cognitive development of students in foreign language acquisition. Advanced Education, 3(7), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.77570

Saienko, N., & Lavrysh, Y. (2020). Mobile assisted learning for self-directed learning development at technical university: SWOT analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1466–1474. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080440

Synekop, O. (2018). Cognitive aspect of learning style in differentiated ESP instruction for the future IT specialists. Advanced Education, 5(10), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.151271

Schank, R., & Abelson, C. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, N. (2016). Inner speech and the dialogical self. Temple University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrf897g

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493