Scaffolding strategy for encouraging Speaking skills among tenth graders

3D"Interfaz Aplicación de la estrategia de andamiaje para mejo= rar las habilidades de la expresión oral en alumnos de décimo grado<= /span>

= ¹⁼

Iralda Mercedes Riera Tubón https://orcid.org/0009-0006-19= 47-6932

Master= ’s Degree in Pedagogy of English as a foreign language Universidad Católica = del Ecuador, Ambato - Ecuador.

imriera@pucesa.edu.ec<= /o:p>

= ²⁼

Luis Antonio Pared= es Rodríguez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-82= 26-3071

Master’s Degree in Linguistics and Didactics in Teaching Foreign Languages, Universidad Central del Ecuador. <= /span>

oupconsultant@gmail.com<= /a>

	Artículo de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica Enviado: 11/0= 3/2023 Revisado: 16/= 04/2023 Aceptado: 05/= 05/2023 Publicado:05/= 07/2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital= .v7i3.2584

Cítese:		Riera Tubón, I. M., & Paredes Rodríguez, L. A. (2023). = Scaffolding strategy for encouraging Speaking skills among tenth graders. Ciencia Digit= al, 7(3), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.33262/cienciadigital.v7i3.2584
		*CIENCIA DIGIT= AL, <= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-font-f= amily: Calibri;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-ansi-language:ES-EC;mso-fareast-language:ES-EC'>es una revista multidisciplinaria, trimestral,* que se publicará en soporte electrónico tiene como misión contribuir a la formació= n de profesionales competentes con visión humanística y crítica que sean capac= es de exponer sus resultados investigativos y científicos en la misma medida= que se promueva mediante su intervención cambios positivos en la sociedad.&nb= sp;https://cienciadigital.org<= u> La revista es editada por la Editorial Ciencia Digital (Editorial de prestigio registra= da en la Cámara Ecuatoriana de Libro con No de Afiliación 663) www.celibro.org.ec
		Esta revista está protegida bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 International. Copia de la licencia: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es
Palabras claves: eficacia, expresión oral, andamiaje, estrategia, décimo grado.		Resumen Introducción:s Hallazgos fueron muy satisfactorios debido a que los niveles de expresión oral de los alumnos en los que se aplicó la estrategia aumentaron significativamente. Además, aspectos como la Gramática y el Vocabulario, = la Pronunciación y la Comunicación Interactiva se fortalecieron a través de = las etapas de la estrategia de Andamiaje. Conclu= siones: Los resultados de este estudio apoyan el uso de la estrategia de andamiaje en= las destrezas orales permitiendo a los estudiantes comprender más información= e incorporar nuevas ideas a sus conocimientos previos. Área de estudio general: Educación. Área de estudio específica: Aprendizaje del idioma Inglés.
Keywords:		Abstract Introduction:= Ecuador is one of the countries in Latin America with the lowest level of English, for this reason, many researches have b= een conducted to face this problem. = Objectives: The present study explored the impact of applying the Scaffolding strategy for developing English as a foreign language focusing on speaking skills.= Methodology: A quasi-experiment= al research was used. The participants were tenth-grade students of the &quo= t;Unidad Educativa Belisario Quevedo" in Pujilí-Ecuador. The sampling method = was non-probabilistic and intentional. The instrument was obtained from the o= ral expression section of the Cambridge PET exam (Preliminary English Test A2) functioning as a pre-test and post-test. Subsequently, the Scaffolding Strategy was applied to one group where students had fourteen class sessi= ons with a structured procedure designed according to the stages of the alrea= dy mentioned strategy. At the end of the study, all participants were evalua= ted through of a post-test to measure the effectiveness of the strategy. Results: The findings were highly satisfactory due to students’ speaking levels where the strategy w= as applied, significantly increased. Eventually, aspects like Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interactive Communication were strengthened through the stages of the Scaffolding strategy. Conclusions:<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Time= s New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> The results of this study support the use of the Scaffolding strategy in oral skills allowing students to comprehend more information and incorporate innovative ideas into their prior knowledge. = The general area of study: Educ= ation. Specific area of study: Engl= ish language learning.

Introduction

The teaching process of foreign languages has been gradually integrated into education and one of the most important languages is English. English is us= ed in many areas like education, business, tourism, and others (Hsu, 2013). So, the essen= tial characteristic of using English is to communicate and how people around the world share information (Langdon & Pandor, 2020).

Therefore, the English language has a significant impact on education, and its teachin= g in some Latin countries like Ecuador has been strengthened in recent years (Xu= et al., 2020). As a result, the teaching of a foreign language is aligned with= the parameters established within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its objective for the year 2024 is to include the need for in= creasing the level of training and qualification of young people and the working population (Lamb, 2020).

Ecuador remains one of the two Latin American countries with the worst level of Eng= lish language proficiency that is why the score is 440 over 1000, according to t= he EF EPI (English Proficiency Index) 2021 report. The mentioned score is equi= valent to an A1 level, for that reason, Ecuador has made many implementations into= the teaching-learning process mainly in the language field. However, these chan= ges or implementations have become less relevant due to the lack of teachers professionally specialized in the language.

Eventually, according to the observations made in the academic field, it has been detec= ted that the lack of strategies and methods for teaching caused a decrease of 6= 0%, since it exponentially moves away from the taste for learning a foreign lan= guage, especially in listening and speaking skills, that is why the low training of competencies into these skills is in accordance with the low levels. As a result, The Ministry of Education in the year 2021 took measures to strengthen and create a new curriculum that fits the needs of the Ecuadorian reality.=

In this study, English oral expression has been chosen as the problem to solve= , because the correct use of this English skill allows students and teachers to have better interaction. This skill favors the communicative environment since s= tudents share their ideas in a clear, complete, and concise way (Adab, 2017).

According to Griva et al. (2020), an emblematic area for English learners is to devel= op oral proficiency. Although, students are often unable to make sense of their ide= as while they are communicating because they face many challenges such us givi= ng accuracy to the meaning as well relating their speech to the environment. T= hat is why the primary role of teachers should be to help students to learn how= to share ideas and communicate rather than teaching them to memorize (Bundick, 2014).

This research project seeks to improve and guide the educational process of teac= hing and learning English as a foreign language, especially by enhancing speaking skills using the scaffolding strategy. In the same line of study, Dennen (2= 013) mentions that Scaffolding guides and adequate the student's development and progress. Then, teachers can enhance learning by allowing students to exceed their own expectations. It also allows teachers to explore in depth how to = use different classroom activities linked to the development of speaking skills. The use of the scaffolding strategy in the teaching of a foreign language promotes autonomous and meaningful learning, always based on the consolidat= ion of knowledge (Lasso, 2021).

Based on this context, the research questions along with the respective hypotheses and objectives are the following:

· RQ. Does the Scaffolding strategy improve students’ speaking levels?

· H0. Applying the scaffolding model will not change the students’ level of speak= ing skills (same averages in the two groups).

· H1. Applying the scaffolding model will change the students’ level of speaking skills (different averages in the two groups).

· G.O. To test the effectiveness of scaffolding strategy to improve knowledge acquisition at various levels of verbal communication.

· S.O.1. To make a framework for the Scaffolding strategy to identify its dimensions= .

· S.O.2. To identify the level of speaking about ten graders through a pre-test

· S.O.3. To apply the Scaffolding strategy and measure the impact on speaking skills= through a post-test.

· S.O.4. To share the results of this research with other colleges to encourage the = use of new methods in the teaching-learning process.

= Scaffolding Strategy

Scaffolding is a strate= gy that uses different types of activities and materials done by the teacher; these= are oriented to help students to develop new knowledge, due to the implementati= on of different didactic materials and methodologies that strengthen the teach= ing and learning process (Sari & Rozim= ela, 2021). This strategy allows teachers to explore in depth the use of different classroom activities related with the development of speaking skills through the following stages shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Stages of Scaffolding strategy

Note: Adapted from “The Implementation of Scaffolding Strategies at Speaking Engl= ish Course in Kampung Inggris Pare East Java,” by Sari & Rozimela (2021). T= he graphic represents the four stages of Scaffolding strategy.

Modeling

The first stage is to model students’ abilities to prepare and stimulate them before starting a new topic. Modeling is about teaching students the possib= le correct way of acting, thinking, or feeling in different kinds of situation= s. The teacher gives students time to familiarize themselves with what they sh= ould do and how to do it. To start, students must analyze how native speakers communicate. There are three kinds of modeling: think-aloud, talk-aloud, and performance modeling, in this case, think-aloud consists of the verbalizati= on of the reasoning used to address a specific topic and the teacher provides = examples and ideas about a topic (Seyedeh, 2016).

The topics must be related to prior concepts and knowledge to foreground the meaning-making process of the student. It’s important to assist students and provide explanations about what, why, when, and how to use what they are learning. The teacher gives the students only keywords and clues, which hel= p them to remember the information considered important, by practicing feedback and assisting them when it is needed. The main idea is for the teacher to act a= s a scaffold and provide only enough information to guide the students to be mo= re independent in learning a new lesson.

Imitating

In this model, the teacher encourages students to practice speaking skills while they use the provided vocabulary and imitate= the teacher's pronunciation. In this stage, the instructor must assist and give feedback to students to correct the mistake, especially during the pronunciation and intonation of the words and phrases seen in the new lesso= n. The mentioned technique is used to drill into the teaching and learning process. If students have an incorrect pronunciation, they need to be guided and corrected by the teacher, who yields the audio with the correct pronunciation and the phonetic symbols. It is also necessary to emphasize a good intonation of phrases since drilling is used, and children can listen = to the teacher and imitate words. In addition, groups of students are formed t= o do different tasks, so they can practice pronunciation and intonation in a real conversation. If students have any doubts or questions, they can ask the teacher.

= Removing

Since the scaffolding was provided temporarily, in this stage, it begins to be removed to show a permanent framework for the understanding and learning of the student. Additionally, the difficulty of tasks increases. Another aspect to consider is that the teacher only gives substantial instructions, then students can repeat w= hat has been learned working in pairs or groups, based on the instructions give= n in class, and help each other to improve by practicing. Support from the teach= er is removed eventually since students have gained experience from doing task= s in which complexity is gradually increased. It is essential for the teacher to observe and supervise the class while students perform the activities. This= allows the teacher to correct the mistakes that they may find in the students understanding.

Achieving

Students have achieved a higher level of understan= ding and can do activities and tasks without any support from the teacher. There= are three functions to consider when practicing speaking skills: The first one = is interaction, which includes the transmission of messages from one person to another. During this stage, there is interaction and communication between = two or more people. The interaction produced is focused on establishing social intimacy. The second is the transaction function, where it is necessary to = make other people understand the message transmitted. The last function is called performance. In this stage, a monolog is preferred by using speeches, telli= ng stories, conferences, etc. These functions improve speaking skills by facilitating learners to express thoughts, ideas, or feelings. With this la= st stage, the Scaffolding strategy has been applied so children learn from the= ir mistakes and corrections given by the teacher. The scaffolding strategy hel= ps students to develop their autonomy by managing their knowledge and skills.<= o:p>

Meth= odology

Quasi-experimental research was u= sed due to the fact that a quasi-experimental design establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Also, the participants were chosen by non-probability purposive sampling. The quasi-experimental research = aims to test a causal hypothesis by manipulating (at least) one independent vari= able (Fernandez et al., 2014). In this study, there are two variables speaking skills being the dependent variable and the scaffolding strategy independent variable one. As Fernandez mentions, the objective is to test a causal hypothesis, in this case, the application of scaffolding strategy by manipulating the independent variable. To accomplish that objective the following process was used according to the model developed by Hernández &a= mp; Bautista (2006).

Figure 2

Research process

Note: Adapted from “Validez Estructurada para una investigación cuasi-experimental de calidad: se cumplen 50 ańos de la presentación en sociedad de los diseńos cuasiexperimentales”, by Fernandez et al. (2014), Anal. Psicol, 30= (2).

The first step of sampling= was to choose the population and define the units of study. For this step, conv= enience or opportunity sampling was used. This technique uses people from an already defined population which was chosen because of the convenience of the resea= rch (López, 2004).

The population defined were the students of "Unidad Educativa Belisario Quevedo" of Puj= ilí city since there is a relationship with this Institution. Tenth-grade stude= nts were taken as a sample since they are the target group of this research. Moreover, the conditions of the mentioned sample are favorable for the stud= y. The data were collected in February 2023, with prior authorization from the authorities. The instrument for the study was obtained from the Speaking Section of Cambridge Test PET (Preliminary English Test A2). It functioned = as a pre-test and post-test. Level A2 is mainly used for ten graders according to the Cambridge English Qualifications (2020). The scale was developed by following well-documented instruments which link the students' performance according to their level.

Cambridge Test PET (Preliminary English Test A2) was used due to it helps to identify students’ weaknesses = and strengths. This test does not need validation because it is a standardized = test that is also recognized and accepted by the best universities in the world.= The evaluation aims to test the variables of Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciat= ion, and Interactive Communication (Cambridge English Qualifications, 2020). Once the population size and the object of study were defined, the pre-test was applied to the two groups of interest (Otzen & Manterola, 2017).

To analyze the level o= f speaking. The test was applied by starting in a conversation, answering, and asking questions already established on the instrument. The conversation was condu= cted face-to-face with other candidates and two examiners. One of the examiners talked to the student while, the other examiner listened and registered the scores according to a scale from 1 to 5 by evaluating the variables of Gram= mar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interactive Communication (Khalifa, 2009). Consequently,= a technical data sheet provides a description about the study.

Table 1=

Research Technical Data Sheet

Item

Description

Target

Two groups of 30 stud= ents (60 students in total)

Temporality

January 2023

Method

Questionnaire Pre-test and Post-test

Valid Questionnaires<= o:p>

60<= /p>

Note: Adapted from “Técnicas= de muestreo y determinación del tamańo de la muestra en investigación cuantita= tiva.” By Rabolini (2009). Revista Argentina de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, 2. This table shows a resume of the data that will = be collected according to the target, temporality, method, and number of questionnaires. <= /p>
After the results were collected, they were transcribed to an Excel sheet to analyze the variables (Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interac= tive Communication) according to the rubric showed in the following table. Then,= the addition of these three items was the result of the Speaking level for each student.

Table 2

Rubric for speaking skills

A2

Grammar and Vocabulary

Pronunciation

Interactive Communication

5

Shows a good degree of control of simple grammatical forms and use of= appropriate vocabulary.

Is mostly intelligible and has some control of phonological features = at both utterance and word levels.

Maintains simple exchanges. Requires very little support.<= /span>

4

Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5.

3

Shows sufficient control of simple grammatical forms and the use of appropriate vocabulary.

Is mostly intelligible, despite limited control of phonological featu= res.

Maintains simple exchanges, despite some difficulty. Requires support= .

2

Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3.

1

Shows only limited control of a few grammatical forms and isolated vo= cabulary and phrases.

Has very limited control of phonological features and is often unintelligible.

Has considerable difficulty maintaining simple exchanges. Requires additional support

0

Performance below Band 1.

Note: Got from “A2 Key Handbook for teacher= s for exams from 2020” by Cambridge English Qualifications (2020), (cambridgeenglish.org/qualifications). This table shows a rubric of speaking evaluation over five points.<= /span>

Later, one group was selected to be part of the experiment, which me= ans the application of the Scaffolding Strategy (Independent Variable). To investigate the effectiveness of the Scaffolding strategy on EFL learners speaking skills, a structured procedure was designed according to the stage= s of the Scaffolding strategy in figure 1 Students had fourteen sessions of clas= ses during February and March 2023 immediately after the pre-test (Llera et al., 2017).

After that, a post-test was applied to measu= re the effectiveness of the Scaffolding strategy to accept or reject the following hypothesis:

·         H0 (= Applying the scaffolding model will not change the students’ level of speaking skills). =

·         H1 (Applying the scaffolding model will change the students’ level of speaking skills).=

During the application of the post-test the = same items (Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interactive Communication= ) were measured then, the statistic T-student was applied with the objective of ac= cepting or rejecting the mentioned hypothesis (Corral & Franco, 2015).

Results

The pre-test was applied to sixty students belonging to the Tenth grade. Each d= ata was organized with the Microsoft Excel program, to acquire the level of speaking of each group, from which the following results (described in tabl= e 3) were obtained according to the aspects: Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciati= on, and Interactive Communication.

Table 3

Results of the Pre-test<= /p>

Criteria

Grades Control group

Grades (%)

Control group

Grades

Experimental group

Grades (%) Experimental group

Grammar and Vocabulary

3.2

21%

2.8

19%

Pronunciation

3.3

22%

2.9

19%

Interactive Communication

2.8

19%

2.6

17%

Total average

9.30

62.00%

8.30

55.33%

Note: This ta= ble shows the averages of the pre-test. The results belong to the control and experimental groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundr= ed percent of domain.=

An analysis = of the aspects: Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interactive Communication was carried out through the rubric (described in table 2) in a range of scores from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest grade and 1 is the lowe= st.

The results obtained were 3.2 over 5 points regarding aspects of Gram= mar and Vocabulary in the control group. On the other hand, the experimental gr= oup got 2.8. Regarding aspects of Pronunciation, the control group got 3.3 over= 5, and the experimental group got 2.9. Finally, evaluating the Interactive communication, the control group got 2.8 over 5 points while the experiment= al group got 2.6. Adding these items gave a final average of 9.3 for the contr= ol group. In contrast to 8.3 for the experimental group. The graphic interpretation of the results is shown in figure 3.

Figure 3

Results of the pre-test control and experimental groups

Note: This graphic s= hows the averages of the pre-test. The results belong to the control and experimental groups. The grade is over fifteen points.

The results obtained from the pre-test displayed that student from the control group represented an average of 9.30, which means that they have a domain of the 62% of Speaking skills. While students from the experimental group got 8.30, representing 55.33% of the domain of the same skill. After the Scaffolding strategy was applied to the experimental group, both groups of students were evaluated again, obtaining the following results described in= table 4.

Table 4

Results of the Post-test

Criteria

Grades Control group

Grades (%)

Control group

Grades

Experimental group

Grades (%) Experimental group

= Grammar and vocabulary

3.3

22%

3.7

25%

= Pronunciation

3.1

21%

3.9

26%

= Interactive communication

2.7

18%

3.5

23%

Total Average

9.10

60.67%

11.10

74%

Note: This ta= ble shows the averages of the post- test. The results belong to the control a= nd experimental groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundr= ed percent of domain.

One more time, the aspects: Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Interact= ive Communication were analyzed. The results obtained from the post-test showed that students from the control group got almost the same grade as the pre-t= est. The results obtained in the control group were 3.3 over 5 points regarding aspects of Grammar and Vocabulary. On the other hand, the experimental group got 3.7. Regarding Pronunciation, the control group got 3.1 over 5 points w= hile the experimental group got 3.9. Finally, in the Interactive Communication, = the control group got 2.7 over 5 points and the experimental group got 3.5. Add= ing these items gave a final average of 9.10 for the control group. In contrast= to 11.10 for the experimental group. Eventually, the graphic results are illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 4

Results of the post-test control and experimental groups

Note: This graphic shows the averages of the post- test.= The results belong to the control and experimental groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundred percent of domain.
The average 9.10 over 15 means a domain of 60.67% in the Speaking skills in the control group, in contrast to the students of the experimental group who obtained 11.10 over 15 it means 74% of the domain of the already mentioned skill. The illustration shows that after the Scaffolding strategy was appli= ed, students increased by 14% their speaking skills. Therefore, a comparison between the two groups is shown in table 5.

Table 5

Comparison of pre-test and post-test c= ontrol and experimental groups

Average control group

Average experimental group

Pretest

9.30

8.30

Post-test

9.10

11.10

Note: This table shows a resume of the results of the pre-test and post-test. The results belong to the control and experimenta= l groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundred percent of domain.=

Then, Excel analyzed the data to obtain the statistic T-student, the variance, the degrees of freedom, and others. Consequently, the data allowed us to accept= or reject the hypothesis, H0: Applying the scaffolding strategy will not change the level of the domain of the speaking skills (same average in the two groups). H1: Applying the scaffolding strategy will change the level of the domain of speaking skills (different averages in the two groups).

First, the statistic fisher was applied to determine if the variances are differen= t or the same (table 6), where there are two conditions:

1. F ≥ 0.05 f=3D2.3570 ≥0.= 05; accomplish

2. F ≥ f critic; F=3D 2.35707349 ≥ 1.86081144; accompli= sh

Table 6

F-test for two-sample variances=

Items

Average control group

Average experimental group

Mean

9.10

11.10

Variance

8.36896552

3.55057471

Observations =

30

30

Degrees of freedom=

29

29

F

2.35707349

P(F<=3Df) one-t= ailed

0.01205159

Critical value for= F (one-tailed)

1.86081144

Note: The program Microsoft Excel created table to obta= in the statistic F-test or fisher using the averages of the control group and experimental group.

It means that the variances are different, and the exercise could be done with= T statistics with different variances, by using the program Microsoft Excel; = in the following table 7 there is an explanation of the data got with the statistic T student.

Table 7=

T student for two samples control and experimental groups

<= /span>

Average control group

Average experimental group

Mean

9.10

11.10

Variance

8.368965517

3.550574713

Observations<= /span>

30

30

Hypothetical difference = of means

0

Degrees of freedom<= /o:p>

50

Statistic t

3.067168352

P(T<=3Dt) one-tailed<= o:p>

0.001741556

P(T<=3Dt) two tailed<= o:p>

0.003483113

Critical value of t (two-tailed)

2.008559112

Note: The program Microsoft Excel created table to obta= in the statistic T-test or T-student using the averages of the control group a= nd experimental group.

The results of the d= ata showed that with the level of risk of 0.05 and 50 grades of freedom; the re= sult of t critical is 2.008559112 and the result of T statist= ic=3D 3.067168352

If t-critical is≤ t- stadistic; H0 will be rejected

If t-critical is ≥t- stadistic; H0 will be accepted

T critica= l=3D2.008559112 ≤ t- stadistic =3D 3.067168352; accomplis= h

P ≤ 0.005; p=3D0.003483113≤ 0.005 acco= mplish

Based on the criteria that If t-critical is≤ t-statistic= ; H0 will be rejected and H1 will be accepted. It means that the level of English speaking is different between = the two groups due to the grade got in the post-test did not increase in the control group where no strategy was applied. Finally, there is a graphic explanation of the statistic T-student in figure 5.

Figure 5

Graphic Illustration of the Statistic T-student

<= ![endif]>

Note: T-student (T=3D 3.06716), level of risk (p =3D 0.05), and degrees of freedom (gl=3D50).

The result of T-stud= ent is around rejection h0 which is why hypothesis H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. The graphic has two tails because the results of the two samples = are not the same. It means that the application of the Scaffolding Strategy had= an impact on one of the samples where the strategy was applied.

= Discussion of Results

Learning to speak a = new language may be intimidating for young learners since it implies the conceptualizati= on, formulation, and articulation of ideas. The mentioned aspects take much more time and may cause in children frustration and anxiety. Based on this conte= xt, researchers are looking for methods that help students to achieve better le= vels of English as a foreign language (Lasso, 2021). According to the research carried out by Langdon & Pandor (2020), there was found that most of the teachers focus only on making students speak but do not concentrate on their social and cognitive skills. That is why the use of strategies like scaffol= ding optimizes time in the teaching-learning process, which allows students to h= ave better communication. On the other hand, Dennen (2013) states that using the scaffolding strategy as an instrument for teaching language skills which represents a high success in the teaching-learning process.

Focusing on this research, after the data were processed to test the effectiveness of the scaffolding strategy it was found that in the control group where no strate= gy was applied, did not show an improvement. The students who belong to this g= roup showed a hesitating speech, limited vocabulary, and some grammatical errors= . In contrast to the results obtained from the experimental group who evidenced a significant difference after the scaffolding strategy was applied. They did= not show any kind of fear while they were communicating, and they had a higher performance during the assignments. This was evidenced by graphs and tables, which detail the difference of the performance between the samples.

The results were hig= hly satisfactory due to students’ speaking levels where the strategy was applie= d, significantly increased. Eventually, aspects like Grammar and Vocabulary, Pronunciation, = and Interactive Communication were strengthened through the stages of the Scaffolding strategy explained in figure 1. Regarding the interactive scaffolding stages, the study of Mozelius (2017) found that motivation has a high relevance when teachers try to enhance speaking skills.

The findings of the present study are supported by similar studies like the study done by Sari & Rozimela (2021), in which there was an experimental and a control gro= up. The first one learned to speak using scaffolding. The results showed that t= he use of the scaffolding strategy was successful in improving speaking skills. Moreover, the study of Okati et al. (2022) confirmed the importance of using strategies that allow students to interact and develop better communication skills.

= Conclusions

·         In conclusion, the results of this study support the use of the scaffolding strategy in speaking skills allowing students to comprehend more information and incorporate innovative ideas into their prior knowledge. Therefore, the success of scaffolding might be due to four remarkable reasons: firstly, st= age modeling was useful because it showed students how to act, think, or feel in different situations. This stage was developed through a structured plan of activities created by the teacher.

·         Secondly, during the stage of imitating, students practiced their speaking skills by imitating the vocabulary and pronunciation, which allowed them to learn how= to pronounce the words (Moody, 2018). Thirdly, during the application of the s= tage called removing, the teacher’s support was removed eventually since students gained experience from doing tasks in which complexity was gradually increa= sed. Finally, while applying the stage called achieving students reached a higher level of understanding through the development of activities and tasks with= out any support from the teacher. In this last stage, there were three function= s to consider. For example, the interaction, which includes the transmission of a message, it is necessary to make other people understand messages, and fina= lly, the step called learning from mistakes aspect in which, children have learn= ed from their own mistakes and corrections given by the teacher.

·         The results of this study can help to encourage English teachers to use strateg= ies, especially in Ecuador where the speaking level is low. Additionally, there = are not many cases in which scaffolding-based methodology is applied. Despite a= ll the contributions, this study had some limitations like the selection of participants to avoid a probable bias between the groups. Another limitation was the time estimated to apply the strategy. Consequently, it is considered that by increasing the number of sessions, the Scaffolding strategy could h= ave brought better results in this study. Finally, the results of this research could encourage other researchers to study or analyze another dimension of speaking skills or even other English skills.

= Conflict of interests

There is no conflict of interest between the autho= rs.

References

Adab, H. W. (2017). Exploring the practice of teacher-student classroom interaction in EFL to develop the learners’ speaking skills in Tullu Sangota primary school grade eight students in focus. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(4), 1-18.

Bundick, M. Q. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4).

Cambridge English Qualification= s. (2020). A2 Key Handbook for teachers for exams from 2020. cambridgeenglish.org/qualifications.

Corral, Y., & Franco, A. (2015). Procedimientos de muestreo. Revista cienc= ias de la educación, 26(46), 151-167.

Dennen, V. P. (2013). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In Handbook = of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 804-819). Routledge

Fernandez, P., Vallejo, G., Livaci, P., & Tuero, E. (2014). Validez Estructurada para una investigación cuasi-experimental de calidad: se cumplen 50 ańos = de la presentación en sociedad de los diseńos cuasi-experimentales. <= i>Anal. Psicol, 30(2), 756-771.

Griva, E., Semoglon, K., & Geladari, A. (2020). Early foreign language learn= ing: Implementation of a project in a game-based context. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3700-3705.

Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Baptista-Lucio, P. (2006). Analisis de los datos cuantitativos. M= etodología de la investigación, 407-499

Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile assisted language learnin= g: a cross-national study. Computer assisted language learning, 26(3), 197-213.

Khalifa, H. a. (2009). Examining Reading: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking, Studies in Language Testing. Cambridge University Press, 29.

Lamb, S. H. (2020). Educational opportunity in Australia 2020. Unsplash: Mitche= ll Institute.

Langdon, A., & Pandor, J. (2020). An investigation of scaffolding strategies to support structured inquiry language teaching to novice learners in a Prim= ary School setting. Language Val= ue, 13(1), 1-22.

Lasso, R. (2021). Aplicación de andamiaje en un modelo de aprendizaje sostenible= y su influencia en el estado emocional durante la COVID-19. VI Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Cooperación (CINAIC 2021), 175-181.

Llera, J., Matinengo, N., & Galiotti, H. (2017). Aplicación de técnicas de m= uestreo probabilístico para estimar la calidad del mosto de uvas tintas. Revis= ta de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 49= (1), 199-126.

López, P. (2004). Población maestra y muestreo. Punto cero, 9(8), 69-74. =

Moody, S. H. (2018). Vocabul= ary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and practice. = Education Sciences, 8(4), 180.

Mozelius, P. (2017). Critical factors for implementing blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technologies in Education, 6(2), 37-51.

Okati, F., Mojavezi, A., & Pishadast, A. (2022). Enhancing Writing Ability through Scaffolding Techniques: A Mixed-Methods Study. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 12(3), 214-237.

Otzen, T., & Manterola, C. (2017). Técnicas de muestreo sobre una población a estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 277-232.

Rabolini, N. (2009). Técnicas de muestreo y determinación del tamańo de la muestra = en investigación cuantitativa. Revista Argentina de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, 2.

Sari, D., & Rozimela, Y. (2021). The Implementation of Scaffolding Strategies at Speaking English Course in Kampung Inggris Pare East Java. In Ninth International Conference on Language, 51-56.

Seyedeh, Z. (2016). Enhancing Speaking Ability through Intervening Scaffolding Strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2191-2= 195.

Xu, D. G. (2020). Does blended instruction enhan= ce English language learning in developing countries? Evidence from México. = British journal of educational technology, 51(1), 211-227.<= /p>
<= ![endif]>

El artículo que se publica es de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan el pensamiento de la Revista Ciencia Digital.

&nbs= p;

El artículo queda en propiedad de la revista y, por tanto, su publicación parcial y/o total en otro medio tiene que ser autoriz= ado por el director de la Revista Cien= cia Digital.

Table 1= Research Technical Data Sheet
Item	Description
Target	Two groups of 30 stud= ents (60 students in total)
Temporality	January 2023
Method	Questionnaire Pre-test and Post-test
Valid Questionnaires<= o:p>	60<= /p>

Table 2
Rubric for speaking skills
A2	Grammar and Vocabulary	Pronunciation	Interactive Communication
5	Shows a good degree of control of simple grammatical forms and use of= appropriate vocabulary.	Is mostly intelligible and has some control of phonological features = at both utterance and word levels.	Maintains simple exchanges. Requires very little support.<= /span>
4	Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5.
3	Shows sufficient control of simple grammatical forms and the use of appropriate vocabulary.	Is mostly intelligible, despite limited control of phonological featu= res.	Maintains simple exchanges, despite some difficulty. Requires support= .
2	Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3.
1	Shows only limited control of a few grammatical forms and isolated vo= cabulary and phrases.	Has very limited control of phonological features and is often unintelligible.	Has considerable difficulty maintaining simple exchanges. Requires additional support
0	Performance below Band 1.
*Note:* Got from “A2 Key Handbook for teacher= s for exams from 2020” by Cambridge English Qualifications (2020), (cambridgeenglish.org/qualifications). This table shows a rubric of speaking evaluation over five points.<= /span>

Table 3 Results of the Pre-test<= /p>
Criteria	Grades Control group	Grades (%) Control group	Grades Experimental group	Grades (%) Experimental group
Grammar and Vocabulary	3.2	21%	2.8	19%
Pronunciation	3.3	22%	2.9	19%
Interactive Communication	2.8	19%	2.6	17%
Total average	9.30	62.00%	8.30	55.33%
Note: This ta= ble shows the averages of the pre-test. The results belong to the control and experimental groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundr= ed percent of domain.=

	Average control group	Average experimental group
Pretest	9.30	8.30
Post-test	9.10	11.10
*Note:* This table shows a resume of the results of the pre-test and post-test. The results belong to the control and experimenta= l groups. The grade is over fifteen points which means a hundred percent of domain.=

Table 6
F-test for two-sample variances=
Items	Average control group	Average experimental group
Mean	9.10	11.10
Variance	8.36896552	3.55057471
Observations =	30	30
Degrees of freedom=	29	29
F	*2.35707349*
P(F<=3Df) one-t= ailed	0.01205159
Critical value for= F (one-tailed)	*1.86081144*

Table 7=
T student for two samples control and experimental groups
<= /span>	Average control group	Average experimental group
Mean	9.10	11.10
Variance	8.368965517	3.550574713
Observations<= /span>	30	30
Hypothetical difference = of means	0
Degrees of freedom<= /o:p>	50
Statistic t	3.067168352
P(T<=3Dt) one-tailed<= o:p>	0.001741556
P(T<=3Dt) two tailed<= o:p>	0.003483113
Critical value of t (two-tailed)	2.008559112