Instructional scaffolding and critical literary analysis among EFL undergraduates: a brief research report

A research report investigated the effectiveness of instructional scaffolding versus traditional lecture-based teaching in developing critical-analytical abilities among non-native English literature undergraduates. The study used a within-subjects quasi-experimental design across four sections, teaching poetry with scaffolding and drama with traditional instruction. While students scored significantly higher on the traditional instruction unit exam, the report notes that this difference cannot be solely attributed to the teaching method due to confounding variables like unit order and literary genre, which were not counterbalanced.

Why it matters

This research provides preliminary insights into teaching methodologies for enhancing critical analysis skills, particularly in language-sensitive educational contexts. Understanding the nuances of teaching method effectiveness is crucial for developing curricula and pedagogical approaches that genuinely improve learning outcomes, despite the limitations of this specific study's design.

Key insights

• Instructional scaffolding was compared to traditional lecture-based teaching for developing critical-analytical abilities in non-native English literature undergraduates.
• A within-subjects quasi-experimental design involved 101 undergraduates across four sections.
• Students were taught a poetry unit using scaffolding (Unit 1) and a drama unit using traditional instruction (Unit 2).
• Students scored significantly higher on the Unit 2 exam (traditional method, drama) than the Unit 1 exam (scaffolding, poetry) (M=11.88 vs. 10.83/15; t(88)=−3.78, p<.001, d=0.40).
• Participants showed a small, consistent preference for the traditional teaching method in forced-choice comparisons.
• The observed difference in student scores and preference cannot be definitively attributed to the teaching method alone, as unit order and literary genre were not counterbalanced across sections.

Source

Frontiers in Education — https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1949299