The Effect of Symmetrical versus Asymmetrical Scaffolding on English Reading Comprehension of EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was aimed at clarifying the effect, if any, of symmetrical scaffolding versus asymmetrical scaffolding on English reading comprehension of Iranian students. The research was carried out on 80 elementary male students in six classes. The six classes were randomly assigned to two inter-class groups, i.e. symmetrical group (SG) and asymmetrical group (AG). Then two parallel tests in the form of a cloze test served as the pre- and post-tests. Since the students accomplished answering the cloze tests with recourse to their similar dictionaries, the results were regarded as the potential knowledge, i.e. zone of proximal development (ZPD), of the students in reading comprehension. In each of the intra-groups of the SG, consisting of four (at times three) students, the students with similar ZPDs in reading comprehension were asked to work together. While in each of the three classes of the AG, the students with different ZPDs in reading comprehension were grouped together. After the intra-class group assignment, the students worked on ten reading comprehension texts in their groups. At the end of the study two independent and two dependent t-tests were run, which indicated that the SG outperformed the AG. Key words: scaffolding; zone of proximal development (ZPD); more knowledgeable other (MKO)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".