Reciprocal Teaching and Scaffolding to develop EFL Reading Skill at Undergraduate level

This paper explores the use of Reciprocal Teaching and Scaffolding to develop English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading skills among undergraduate students in Bangladesh. It addresses the limitations of traditional, teacher-centered reading instruction, particularly students’ difficulties in understanding texts, identifying key information, using vocabulary in context, and developing independent reading skills. Grounded in Constructivist learning theory, the paper proposes a learner-centered approach using four Reciprocal Teaching strategies—predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing—supported by instructional scaffolding. Three model lesson plans are presented to develop students’ skimming, scanning, inference, comprehension, collaboration, and critical-thinking skills. The approach gradually transfers responsibility from teacher to learners through group work, peer interaction, class presentations, and individual tasks. The paper argues that integrating Reciprocal Teaching and Scaffolding can increase student engagement, motivation, confidence, and autonomy while creating a more interactive reading environment. It concludes that these approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional reading instruction and can contribute to more effective EFL reading development at the undergraduate level in Bangladesh.

Reciprocal Teaching; Scaffolding; EFL Reading Skills; Constructivism; Undergraduate Learners; Reading Comprehension; Student-Centered Learning; Learner Engagement; Critical Thinking;

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. Et al (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Abridged Edition ed., New York Longman [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bales, Kris. (2020) “How to Boost Reading Comprehension with Reciprocal Teaching.” https:// www.thoughtco.com/reciprocal-teaching-definition-4583097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baron, E. (2013). Connect, Participate and learn: Transforming pedagogies in higher education. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 15(1), 9-12.: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brown, J. K. (2008). Student-Centered instruction: Involving Students in Their Own Education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5), 30-35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2006). Innovative assessment in higher education. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Copple, C., &Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cullinane, A. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy and its Use in Classroom Assessment. Resource & Research Guides, 1(13), 1-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Elizabeth A Davis, Naomi Miyake (2004) Exploring of Scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the learning sciences [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Edwards R (2003) Ordering subjects: Actor-networks and intellectual technologies in lifelong learning, Studies in The Education of Adults 35(1): 54-67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active Learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Felder R. M. And R. Brent, “Learning by Doing,” Chem. Engr. Education, 37(4), 282-283 (2003) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hedge, Tricia (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom.Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Volume 5, Number 3 Oxford: Oxford University Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jopp, R. (2019). A case study of a technology enhanced learning initiative that supports authentic assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-17. DOI: Swinburne University of Technology 10.1080/13562517.2019.1613637 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a Second Language. Elementary School Journal, 96 (3), 275 – 293. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. KW Chan, RG Elliott, (2000) Rational analysis of Personal epistemology and Conceptions about teaching and learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, Elsevier [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Knight, J. K., & Wood, W.B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less, Cell Biology Education 4(4), 298-310. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lai, E.R. Metacognition (2011.). A Literature Review. Pearson Research Report. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Luna S. C. (2015) The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st Century? Education Research and Foresight.National University of Ireland [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. LoseM.K. (2007). Applying Wood’s Levels of Contingent Support for Learning in Reading Recovery. Journal of Reading Recovery. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Miller, M., &Veatch, N. (2011). Literacy in Context (LinC): Choosing Instructional Strategies to Teach Reading in Content Area for Students Grades 5-12. Pearson [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. National Behaviour Support Service (NBSS), NavanEducation Care, Reciprocal Teaching, (1984) Reading and Learning Strategy [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Paul, R.P., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Reiser, B.J.2004. “Scaffolding Complex Learning”. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3): 273-304. Doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls 1303-2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rose, David H., Ed., Meyer, Anne, Ed. A practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning, Harvard Education Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Saavedra, A. And Opfer, V. 2012.Teachingand Learning 21st Century Skills: Lessons from theLearning Sciences. A Global Cites Education Network Report. New York, Asia Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Swaffield, Sue. 2011. “Getting to the Heart of Authentic Assessment for Learning’. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18(4): 433-449 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice (2nded.). Philadelphia: Caslon Pub. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Walker, C. (2009). Teaching policy theory and its application to practice using long, structured case studies: An approach that deeply engages undergraduate students. International JournalofTeachingand Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 214-225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Wright, G.B, (2002) Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education, Central Connecticut State University [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview, College of Education, Ohio State University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active learning in higher education, 11(3), 167-177 [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