Empowering Students through Scaffolding: Enhancing Critical Reading and Text Analysis Skills

Developing students' critical reading and text analysis skills is essential in today's information-driven society. However, many learners struggle with these competencies due to insufficient reading strategies, limited prior knowledge, and inadequate instructional support. Scaffolding, rooted in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, offers a structured approach that enhances comprehension and analytical abilities by providing temporary, tailored assistance that gradually fades as students gain independence. This study explores the role of scaffolding in fostering critical reading skills, synthesizing relevant theoretical frameworks and empirical research to propose a comprehensive instructional model. Existing literature demonstrates that scaffolding strategies—such as guided reading, thinkalouds, and metacognitive support—significantly improve students’ ability to engage with complex texts. However, gaps remain in understanding how scaffolding fosters higher-order critical analysis, particularly in digital and multimodal reading environments. Additionally, limited research addresses the long-term effects of scaffolding on students’ independent learning. This paper introduces a conceptual framework integrating Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model, and Cognitive Load Theory to illustrate how scaffolding enhances deep textual engagement. The findings suggest that scaffolding not only improves comprehension but also cultivates analytical reasoning, metacognitive awareness, and learner autonomy. The implications highlight the need for differentiated scaffolding strategies to accommodate diverse learners, the integration of digital scaffolding tools, and the incorporation of scaffolding within innovative pedagogical models such as flipped classrooms. Future research should explore the role of AI-driven adaptive scaffolding and assess its long-term impact on critical literacy. By addressing these gaps, educators and policymakers can develop more effective instructional strategies that empower students as critical thinkers and lifelong learners.

Scaffolding ,Critical Reading ,Text Analysis , Metacognition, Zone of Proximal

1. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cho, B. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). International Reading Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Elizabeth Bunga DU & Joko Nurkamto & Nunuk Suryani & Gunarhadi Gunarhadi, 2024. "Enhancing Critical Reading Through Metacognitive Scaffolding in Flipped-Classroom," World Journal of English Language, Sciedu Press, vol. 14(6), 297-297. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ebadi, S., & Beigzadeh, M. (2015). The effect of teacher scaffolding vs. peer scaffolding on EFL learners’ reading comprehension development. International Journal of English and Education, 4(2), 105-116. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ling, T. M., & Harun, J. (2014, December). Instructional scaffolding in online collaborative learning environment for knowledge construction among engineering students. In 2014 IEEE 6th Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED) (pp. 40-45). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEED.2014.7194685 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Martín de León, C., & García Hermoso, C. (2020). Suitable activities for independent learning. In A. Plutino, K. Borthwick & E. Corradini (Eds), Innovative language teaching and learning at university: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. treasuringlanguages(pp.47-52).Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.40.1065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Martinez-Lincoln, A., Barnes, M. A., & Clemens, N. H. (2021). The influence of student engagement on the effects of an inferential reading comprehension intervention for struggling middle school readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 71(2), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00209-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270–298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Narbayevna, A. A. (2025). Enhancing reading skills through the implementation of scaffolding strategies. SHOKH LIBRARY. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Niculescu, B. O., & Dragomir, I. A. (2023). Critical Reading-A Fundamental Skill for Building 21 st Century Literacy. In International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 215220). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Palani, S., Naik, A., Downey, D., Zhang, A. X., Bragg, J., & Chang, J. C. (2023, April). Relatedly: Scaffolding literature reviews with existing related work sections. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-20). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and special Education, 11(6), 7-15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary educational psychology, 8(3), 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Reynolds, M. (2017). The role of scaffolding in developing higher-order thinking skills. Pedagogical Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Richards Maldonado, L., Abouzied, A., & Gleason, N. W. (2023, October). Reader quizzer: Augmenting research papers with just-in-time learning questions to facilitate deeper understanding. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 391-394). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Samsonova, O. (2024). Enhancing Seventh Graders Reading Proficiency with Achieve3000. Journal of elearning Research, 3(2), 43-61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tan, C. Y. (2024). Socioeconomic Status and Student Learning: Insights from an Umbrella Review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09929-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Tatum, M. N., & Huber, T. (2020). Universal ESL Scaffolding for the K-12 Teacher: A Literature Review. 66, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.32861/RJE.66.57.62 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wanzek, J., Al Otaiba, S., & L. McMaster, K. (2020). Intensive Reading Interventions for The Elementary Grades. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of twelve good Internet readers. Journal of literacy research, 40(1), 128-162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study