The Effects of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Scaffolding on University Students’ Grammar Learning


1 MA, TEFL, Kharazmi University

2 PhD candidate, TEFL, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran


This study investigated the extent to which two types of scaffolding, namely symmetrical and/or asymmetrical scaffolding could contribute to the acquisition of grammar among Iranian EFL sophomores. To fulfill this objective, 42 female college students whose age ranged between 19 and 24 were selected through convenience sampling and, after taking a pretest, divided into two groups of: symmetrical scaffolding (SS) and asymmetrical scaffolding (AS). The experimental group AS received instruction according to asymmetric strategy, while the experimental group SS was instructed via the symmetric strategy. To answer the research questions, a post-test was conducted, and its results were analyzed using independent and paired t-test. The results showed that AS scaffolding is a more fruitful strategy in improving participant's grammar achievement. The findings of this study have implications for teachers. Pair work is a central task in any language class and teachers usually do not know how to arrange the pairs. Some teachers arrange them by age, while other teachers arrange pairs by proficiency level. The results of this research indicated that when arranging pairs, teachers need to choose students from differing proficiency levels.


Article Title [Persian]

تاثیر کمک متقارن و نامتقارن بر روی یادگیری گرامر زبان انگلیسی توسط دانشجویان دانشگاهی

Authors [Persian]

  • مجید ایزانلو 1
  • محمدرضا فرنگی 2
1 کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران
2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز
Abstract [Persian]

هدف این مقاله بررسی دو نوع حمایت (کمک)، شامل حمایت متقارن و حمایت نامتقارن، بر روی یادگیری گرامر در میان دانشجویان زبان اموز (انگلیسی) سال دوم میباشد. برای این منظور، 42 دانشجوی دختر بین سنین 19 و 24 سال از طریق نمونه گیری در درسترس به عنوان شرکت کننده انتخاب شدند. بعد از گذراندن پیش ازمون انها به دو گروه: حمایت متقارن و حمایت نامتقارن تقسیم شدند.  گروه ازمایشی حمایت نامتقارن فعالیت های اموزشی بر اساس استراتژی های نامتقارن دریافت کرد در حالی که گروه ازمایشی حمایت متقارن فعالیت های اموزشی بر اساس استراتژی های متقارن دریافت کرد. برای رسیدن به اهداف تحقیق، پس از دریافت مداخله، شرکت کنندگان در پس ازمون شرکت کردند. نتایج ازمون ها با استفاده از ازمون  تی وابسته و مستقل تحلیل شد. نتایج نشان داد برای افزایش دانش گرامر زبان اموزان استراتژی های حمایت نامتقارن درمقایسه با  استراتژی های حمایت متقارن مفید تر هستند.  یافته های این تحقیق راهکارهایی برای اموزگاران  زبان دارد. فعالیت های  زوجی و  ترکیبی از مهمتریین فعالیت های کلاسی هستند. با این وجود اموزگاران درک صحیحی از نحوه چینش زوج ها برای همکاری ندارند. بعضی اموزگاران سن و بعضی دیگر سطح دانش را معیار ترکیب قرار میدهند. نتایج تحقیق حاضر نشان داد برای تشکیل گروههای دونفره اموزگاران باید از دانش اموزان با سطوح متفاوت استفاده کند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • ZPD
  • کمک متقارن
  • کمک نامتقارن
  • گرامر
Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. ( 2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The TESOLANZ Journal, 13, 76-88.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Timcheh Memar, H., & Timcheh Memar, A. (2010). The effect of symmetrical versus asymmetrical scaffolding on English reading comprehension of EFL learners. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(7), 104-111.

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students.Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401-422.

Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40, 63-73.

Dahms, M., Geonnotti, K., Passalacqua, D., Schilk, J. N., Wetzel, A., & Zulkowsky, M. (2009). The Educational Theory of Lev Vygotsky: an analysis. Retrieved from

Damon W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three methods of peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.

Daniels, H. (2005). An introduction to Vygotsky (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (Eds.). (2007). The British companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donato, R. (1994).Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fotos, A. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching  English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 267-283). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Garton, A. F. (1992). Social interaction and the development of language and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greenfield, P. (2001). Culture and universals: a tribute to Bärbel Inhelder. In A. Tryphon, & J. Vonèche (Eds.), Working with Piaget: Essays in honour of Bärbel Inhelder (pp. 149-178). Hove: Psychology Press.

Granott, N. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge: Separate minds‚ joint effort‚ and weird creatures. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.)‚ Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 183-207). Hillsdale‚ NJ: Erlbaum.

Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211-234.

Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72.

Lourenço, O. (2012). Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference. New ideas in psychology, 30, 281-295

Maftoon, P., & Ghafoori, G. (2009). A comparative study of the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative interaction on the development of EFL learners’ writing skill. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 128-158.

Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching and Learning, 4, 95-121.

Piaget, J. (1960). The general problem of the psychobiological development of the child. In J. Tanner, & B. Inhelder (Eds.), Discussions on child development, Vol. 4 (pp. 3-27). London: Tavistock.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pishghadam R., & Ghardiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or asymmetrical scaffolding: Piagetian vs. Vygotskian views to reading comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(1), 49-64.

Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, task and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 391-411.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.

Veeramuthu, V. (2011). The effect of scaffolding technique in journal writing among the second language learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 934-940.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of general psychology: Collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum.

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