The Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on EFL Students’ Grammar Competence and Oral Proficiency: The Case of Jimma Teachers College of Education, Oromia, Ethiopia

The Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on EFL Students’ Grammar Competence and Oral Proficiency: The Case of Jimma Teachers College of Education, Oromia, Ethiopia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on EFL Students’ Grammar Competence and Oral Proficiency: The Case of Jimma Teachers College of Education, Oromia, Ethiopia Tekeste Aynekulu, Tekle Ferede This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Instructional Scaffolding Strategy (ISS) is essential for academic purposes to boost communicative language teaching (CLT). This study was conducted to examine the effect of instructional scaffolding on grammar competency and oral speaking proficiency of EFL students at Jimma College of Teacher Education. After the pilot study had been done, data were collected using a quasi-experimental design, employing quantitative queries using the pre-post competence tests and motivation questionnaires from both treatment and control groups. The data were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). A total of 84 first-year college trainees were selected as the study’s participants. The two groups were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups using a convenience sampling technique. Communicative grammar and oral-speaking interventions were implemented in the treatment group using the contingency teaching model (CTM). The control group, however, received conventional instruction. The results indicated a significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment and control groups. Consequently, the study confirmed that ISS intervention should be integrated to enhance students' grammar confidence and spoken fluency. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating scaffolding into lessons, as it has vital implications for enhancing EFL students' collaborative learning, sense of ownership, and motivation. Instructional Scaffolding Strategy (ISS) Grammar Competence (GC) Oral Proficiency (OP) Motivation Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION In communicative language teaching (CLT) classrooms, instructional scaffolding plays a significant role in promoting students' grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The core responsibility of a dedicated teacher is to foster students' academic progress through the implementation of instructional scaffolding strategies (ISS). Scaffolding is defined as a deliberate support system provided to students, guiding them through complex learning processes (Michell -Nsw, 2005). The ISS framework in language instruction motivates learners to become enthusiastic communicators. An effective language-learning process for academic purposes requires relevant teaching methods, philosophies, and strategies that enable learners to achieve competence in communicative language (Thabit & Ahmed, 2018). Various strategies have been identified as essential for supporting students’ language achievement and fostering their independent use of the target language. (Amin Bassiri, 2012; Fathi & Shirazizadeh, 2020)(Kunasaraphan, 2015). With the global recognition of communicative language teaching, there has been a paradigm shift in language instruction, moving from linguistic-focused methods to more practical and communicative teaching strategies (Jacobs & Farrell, 2003). CLT methods, in particular, emphasize the development of effective communicative language skills. In English as a foreign language (EFL) classes, the goal is to improve students' communicative competence, specifically focusing on both grammar and oral proficiency. According to Haimi and Yigzaw, the pedagogical approaches to teaching grammar and speaking have garnered significant attention with the rise of CLT methods (Haimi et al., 2012; Yigzaw, 2020). To develop students' understanding of grammar usage and oral proficiency effectively, teachers must employ participatory approaches Cray, (2004); Burns, (2019)& Harun et al., 2019). These tasks are central to the CLT approach, which focuses on interactive and active learning methods aimed at enhancing academic success. Concerning scaffolding, the CLT approach significantly influences learners’ academic progress in achieving communicative competence (Harper & Parkin, n.d.). In Ethiopian language learning theory, training the target language for communicative purposes is considered a modern approach to language instruction (Mulatu et al., 2023). Language learning theories primarily focus on providing insights and empowering students to become proficient facilitators in language teaching methodology. CLT has gained widespread acceptance in language teaching, and integrating CLT tasks into training courses enhances students' ability to achieve communicative competence (Mulatu et al., 2023). To attain independently within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Sarmiento-Campos et al., 2022). Instructional scaffolding has been regarded as an effective method for helping learners overcome linguistic challenges and develop competence in basic language skills (Brumfit, 1986). Through supportive interaction, each learner can access the scaffolding, with its intensity varying according to the degree of direct mediation and dialogue between teachers and students (Taber, 2018). Two key sociocultural perspectives regarding scaffolding are: scaffolding as co-regulatory action mediated by language and scaffolding as task-enabling assistance. Learning through scaffolding is not merely about seeking fluency or accuracy but about reconstructing the relationship between knowledge, practice, and experience (Zhang, 2023). Scaffolding helps learners improve their grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency by changing their interest in the subject matter and guiding them in constructing knowledge. By reflecting on their scaffolded experiences, students can improve their grammar and speaking skills. While traditionally, the term "scaffolding" was viewed as impractical, it has been effectively applied in literacy and education worldwide (Hammond, 2015 Gibbons, 2015). Scaffolding is not merely a form of teacher support but also serves to assist learners in constructing knowledge by cultivating, shifting, and informing their thinking (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Through collaborative interaction and socialization, learning becomes a social process according to sociocultural theory (Atsumbe et al., 2018). Effective scaffolding enables students to become independent learners through ongoing practice and preparation, which is achieved by addressing their existing knowledge gaps. Scaffolding plays a crucial role in improving language acquisition and performance by exposing learners to new lessons within meaningful contexts, providing them with opportunities to practice speaking skills in the classroom (Belland, 2017). In today's globalized world, grammatical communication skills are essential for success in academic and professional contexts, and scaffolding has proven effective in enhancing basic language skills. In Ethiopia, university trainees are often found to be below the expected level of grammatical accuracy and writing proficiency (Abate, 2008). Many instructors express dissatisfaction with their students' oral proficiency, particularly in academic settings. The researcher has observed directly how students feel anxiety (panic) make mistakes, and avoid speaking in English in classroom settings, especially during oral communication. This phenomenon highlights the importance of addressing these challenges through scaffolding strategies. If the matter is unaddressed, this issue negatively affects the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, the implementation of scaffolding strategies in EFL learning is expected to improve students' communicative grammar competence and oral-speaking proficiency (Bax, 2003) (George M. Jacobs, 2003). Characteristics of Scaffolder in the Teaching-learning Process Scaffolding in language education is a strategic method where temporary support is provided to learners to help them reach their full potential and enhance their understanding. This support, often applied in instructional settings, is gradually reduced as learners gain the necessary skills to function independently (Ayman et al., 2022). In language teaching, scaffolding specifically involves the provision of crucial support to help students grasp new linguistic concepts, especially when learning oral communication skills. Bansal (2017), highlights three key features of scaffolding: effective communication, collaboration, and the nature of delivering temporary support. These elements ensure that students receive assistance tailored to their current development levels, often described through Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Puntambekar, 2022). According to this theory, learning occurs most effectively when the support provided is just beyond the learner's current ability, pushing them to new levels of understanding and capability. In the context of grammar and oral proficiency, scaffolding plays a critical role in promoting better understanding and effective communication. Correct grammatical use is integral to successful communication, and scaffolding is one of the ways to ensure that learners gain mastery over the grammatical structures needed for fluent speech. Grammar in oral tasks is essential not only for understanding but also for making a positive impression during assessments. For students, strong grammar skills contribute to improved speaking competence, particularly in oral presentations or during speaking assessments. The Role of Teachers in Teaching Grammar and Oral Speaking Skills At the tertiary level, teachers are essential in scaffolding grammar instruction to improve students' speaking competence. According to Tadesse Abebe et al., (2012), teachers must design learning experiences that encourage active student participation, with a focus on grammar as it relates to speaking skills. This emphasis is essential since grammatical proficiency directly influences how effectively students can communicate in oral tasks. In higher education settings, students' ability to use grammar correctly is integral to their performance in speaking assessments, where fluency and accuracy are tested (Derakhshan et al., 2016), (Roosdianna, F. F., Munir, A., & Anam, 2018). The teacher's role is multifaceted, as they help students develop grammatical skills necessary for fluency and clear speech while also fostering an environment where students feel confident to speak. The aim is to reduce anxiety and build confidence, allowing students to practice using grammar in realistic, communicative contexts. As Khairani & Sumarsih, (2021) suggest, scaffolding helps students engage with grammar more dynamically and improve their speaking proficiency through repeated guided practice. Performance-Based Classroom Tasks in Grammar and Oral Speaking Skills Teaching grammar in language classrooms should be adapted to incorporate performance-based tasks that assess both accuracy and fluency. In English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, grammar has traditionally received significant attention, but students often find it challenging to apply grammatical rules in spoken language, particularly when trying to articulate complex thoughts. Research by Menggo & Gunas, (2022) and others highlights that despite its importance, grammar remains a barrier for students trying to speak fluently. Instructional scaffolding, especially in a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) environment, can bridge this gap (George M. Jacobs, 2003; Jacobs & Farrell, 2003). By emphasizing real communication tasks such as debates, discussions, and presentations, scaffolding helps students practice grammar within meaningful contexts. These tasks encourage students to engage in active learning, improving both their grammatical understanding and their ability to express themselves orally in real-world situations. The Relationship between Grammar and Oral Speaking Proficiency Findings show that there is strong connection between grammar competence and speaking proficiency. Scholars by Kusumawardani & Mardiyani, (2018) and Ngilma, (2022), stress that grammar competence is essential for both accuracy and fluency in speaking. Fluent speakers tend to have a strong command of grammar, which helps them avoid errors while producing speech in real-time. Conversely, students with weaker grammatical knowledge often struggle with fluency, as they may become too focused on grammatical correctness rather than communication. As Silitonga & Batam, (2014) and Quines, (2023) argue, mastering grammatical structures enables students to express themselves more easily and naturally. Thus, balancing grammar instruction with opportunities for communicative practice can help students build both accuracy and fluency, resulting in more effective oral communication. Statement of the Problem Despite the acknowledged importance of scaffolding in language acquisition, many students in tertiary settings struggle with both grammar and oral speaking skills, especially in English. The researchers have observed that students in communicative language teaching classrooms face challenges using grammar effectively during oral presentations, group discussions, and other speaking tasks. This lack of grammatical competence often leads to students being hesitant to engage in communication tasks, which ultimately affects their performance in oral assessments. Instructional scaffolding, though recognized for its potential to enhance language learning, has not yet been fully implemented in addressing the specific grammar and speaking challenges that students face in these contexts. This gap in practice is particularly concerning since scaffolding has been shown to improve language skills, but it has not been adapted systematically for EFL students’ needs in real classroom settings. The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of instructional scaffolding on EFL students' grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Through the application of scaffolding in the context of CLT, the study aims to explore how targeted support in grammar instruction can lead to better oral communication skills. The study seeks to address the following specific objectives: To investigate the effect of instructional scaffolding on EFL students’ grammar competence in CLT classroom settings. To determine the effect of instructional scaffolding on EFL students' oral speaking proficiency in the CLT context. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were formulated for this study: H O 1 : There is no statistically significant difference in grammar competence between EFL students in experimental and control groups during pre-and post-tests. H A1 : There is a statistically significant difference in grammar competence between EFL students in experimental and control groups during pre-and post-tests. H O2 : There is no statistically significant difference in oral speaking proficiency between EFL students in pre-and post-tests. H A2 : There is a statistically significant difference in oral speaking proficiency between EFL students in pre-and post-tests. Materials and Methods Research Paradigm and Design The study follows the post-positivism paradigm (Habib, 2020) to investigate the effects of instructional scaffolding on EFL students' grammar competence and oral proficiency. The quasi-experimental design, including pre-and post-tests with experimental and control groups, was employed to measure the impact of scaffolding. Data from questionnaires and assessments were collected to evaluate changes in grammar competence and speaking proficiency before and after the intervention. The study aims to provide empirical evidence on how scaffolding can enhance language learning in EFL settings. In summary, this study aims to address the communication challenges faced by college students in using grammar and speaking English effectively. Through the application of instructional scaffolding, this research hopes to demonstrate a significant improvement in both grammar and oral speaking proficiency, thereby supporting more effective communicative language teaching practices in EFL contexts. Research Context Among East African countries, Ethiopia is a multi-national and multi-ethnic nation, consisting of 12 regional states and 2 administrative cities. Jimma Zone, located in the southwest of Oromia, is one of the largest and most densely populated regions. Jimma College of Teacher Education, a government-run institution, is located in Jimma town and was established in 1961. It is one of the oldest and most resource-rich colleges in Ethiopia, training students in five major fields. The college has six departments, and freshman students are organized into five streams: Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Language Studies, Sports, Aesthetics, and Education. Social Science and Leadership students were selected for this study using a lottery method. Freshman students were purposively chosen because Communicative English Language Skills-I (FLen-101) is a common course for all first-year students. One of the course objectives is to improve the student's English language proficiency for communication purposes. During scaffolding, grammar awareness and oral-speaking proficiency are developed through various communicative exercises. Study Population and Setting This study was conducted in South-West Ethiopia, specifically in the Jimma Zone of the Oromia region, at the Jimma College of Education. There are thirteen teacher colleges in the Oromia regional state, and Jimma College is considered one of the three centers of excellence for teacher education training, offering both diploma and degree programs for future teachers. Convenience sampling was used to select Jimma College due to its accessibility, the willingness of participants to volunteer, and their familiarity with the setting (Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei & Zoltan, n.d.). The study population consisted of 84 EFL trainees enrolled in the college's degree program. Grammar and oral proficiency tests were administered to examine the impact of instructional scaffolding on the grammatical competence and oral proficiency of the EFL students. Participants were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. Data Gathering Instruments To assess participants' grammar competence, 50 grammar test items were adapted from intermediate English grammar sources of Cambridge University Press (CPU, 2019). This test was recently used to measure the grammar knowledge of trainees. To evaluate participants' oral speaking proficiency, five items from G.N. Lansdown's African Animal Stories (London, Macmillan English, New York Press) were adapted, as they provided relevant, contextual oral speaking assessments. To test the reliability of the instruments, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients (r) were calculated using SPSS (Patten, 2021 Turney, 2022) . The tests were found to be reliable, with correlation coefficients (r) of 0.697 for grammar competence and 0.657 for oral proficiency. According to Schober & Schwarte, (2018), when the correlation coefficient (r) is above 0.7, the study tools have a strong correlation, making them suitable for data collection. Experimental Group Training The experimental group received four hours of scaffolding strategy instruction, adapted to align with the participants' course content (Lerch et al., 2011;(McLeod, 2018). The participants were informed about the use of instructional scaffolding strategies and how to enhance their grammar and oral speaking skills in the context of the communicative English language skills course. The researchers provided scaffolding strategy practice to the treatment group, encouraging them to explore useful elements. Each point was discussed, and any ambiguities were addressed by interacting with the participants and responding to their feedback. Schedule for the Study The study participants attended regular courses for three hours per week. Out of the 16 weeks assigned for the study, 12 weeks were dedicated to the treatment. Grammar and oral speaking questions were prepared based on the communicative English language skills I & II course modules. The study groups followed a process approach, followed by a product approach, in which participants first practiced grammar exercises and then engaged in oral speaking tasks. They were evaluated using objective tests and verbal presentations. Both groups were scored based on Cambridge University Press (CUP) (2019) keys and oral rubric scoring systems from (Marzuki, 2023) to ensure valid results. Before each grammar and oral speaking test, the researchers assessed participants' responses and oral presentations, focusing on grammatical errors. Data Collection Procedure Data were collected using grammar and oral proficiency tests to determine whether there were any differences in the mean scores of the dependent variables. Participants took a pre-test before the treatment to check if the experimental and control groups had similar mean scores for grammar and oral proficiency. After the treatment, the same procedures were followed to gather post-treatment data. During the study, participants in the treatment group practiced using the scaffolding based on the model of contingency teaching (MCT) adapted from.(Van de Pol et al., 2012). Data Analysis Pre- and post-test data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 (Pallant J, 2010). One-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze grammar and oral proficiency tests. MANOVA is preferred for controlling type I errors and allows simultaneous comparisons of two or more related dependent variables (Tabachnick et al., n.d.). A paired samples t-test analysis was also conducted to investigate the mean score differences before and after treatment in both the experimental and control groups. Means and standard deviations obtained from the MANOVA and paired samples t-test outputs were used to explain the study results. Ethical Considerations The researchers obtained informed consent from participants and ensured participant privacy by assigning numbers instead of names to the returned research instruments. The study participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and consent was obtained from the Language Streams and Language Department at Jimma College of Teacher Education. Results of the Study Pre-post-test data were collected from both the control and experimental groups. The pre-treatment data helped determine whether the two groups were similar in terms of their grammar and oral proficiency levels. Post-treatment data were gathered to assess the impact of instructional scaffolding on the participants’ grammar and oral proficiency. Pre-Treatment Study Results In table 1, a one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the effects on students' grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Preliminary assumption tests showed no serious violations. The MANOVA analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups in terms of grammar competence and oral proficiency before the treatment (Wilk’s lambda = 0.614, F (4, 81) = 25.479, p > 0.01, partial eta = 0.486). Therefore, the two groups were comparable in terms of grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation before the treatment. Table 1 : Pretreatment Multivariate tests Multivariate Test Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Groups Wilk’s Lambda .0614 25.479 a 2.000 81.000 .503 . .486 Exact statistic a ANOVA follow-up was conducted separately on both dependent variables and no statistically significant difference was observed between the control and experimental groups. As shown in in table 2, Grammar competence F= (1, 78) = 0.401, p>0.641, partial eta square=0.007, and Oral speaking proficiency F= (1, 78) = 0.716, p=307 partial eta square=0.005 Hence, the control and experimental groups participants are corresponding in their grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency when examined separately (Table 2). Table 2: Pretreatment Separate tests of dependent variables (ANOVA result) Source Tests of between-subjects effects Dependent variable Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta square Corrected Model Grammar competence .690 1 .690 .401 .641 .007 Oral proficiency .307 1 .307 .213 .641 .005 Intercept Grammar competence 18.009 1 18.009 321.060 .000 .414 Oral proficiency 119.937 1 119.937 426.797 .000 .082 Group Grammar competence .690 1 .690 .401 .641 .007 Oral proficiency .307 1 .307 .213 .401 .005 Error Grammar competence 4.059 78 4.059 334.204 .000 .062 Oral proficiency 4.250 78 4.250 224.395 .000 .055 Total Grammar competence 17.172 84 .226 Oral proficiency 38.314 84 .504 Corrected Total Grammar competence 1290.862 81 16.985 Oral proficiency 1341.147 81 17.647 a . R Squared =.003 (Adjusted R Squared= −.007) b . R Squared =.007 (Adjusted R Squared= −.005) Similarly, in Table 3, the mean score of grammar competence for the treatment group (M = 36.9, SD = 3.55) was matched with that of the control group (M = 38.56, SD = 3.59) and similarly, the mean score of oral speaking proficiency in the treatment group correspond (M = 25.75, SD = 2.92) to that of the control group (M = 26.60, SD = 3.41). Before the treatment, the experimental group and the control group had almost similar grammar and oral speaking proficiency. Table 3: Pre-Treatment of Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics Groups Mean Stad. deviation N Grammar competence Experimental group 36.945 3.55 43 Control group 38.567 3.59 41 Total 37.756 3.57 84 Oral speaking proficiency Experimental group 25.756 2.92 43 Control group 26.609 3.41 41 Total 26.182 3.17 84 A post-treatment study using MANOVA Results Now, a one-way between-groups Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was formed to test the effect of instructional scaffolding strategy on enhancing grammar and oral speaking proficiency of college students. The initial assumptions testing was conducted to examine normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliners, multicollinearity, and homogeneity of variance matrices. No serious violation was found. The analysis of one-way between the groups MANOVA produced statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control group on the combined dependent variables grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency (Wilks’ Lambda = .779, F (4, 81) = 25.42, p < 0.001, partial eta square = 0.539) (Table 4). The result of instructional scaffoldings’ has a statistically significant effect on students’ grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Hence, the alternative hypotheses were accepted. Table 4: Post-treatment Multivariate tests Multivariate Test Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared Groups Wilk’s Lambda .779 35.321 2.000 81.000 .000 .539 Exact statistic a A follow-up ANOVA adjusted to the Bonferroni method was conducted (p = 0.01/2 = 0.005) to test the two dependent variables separately. There were statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups with F (1, 78) = 34.463, p < .001, eta partial square = 0.262 for grammar competence and the result of writing achievement goal orientations was also statistically significantly different with F (1, 78) = .830, p < 0.001, partial eta square = 0.009. Consequently, it can be said that instructional scaffolding of grammar has a positive effect on students’ oral speaking proficiency. The alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table 5). Table 5: Post-treatment Separate tests of dependent variables (ANOVA result) Source Tests of between-subjects effects Dependent variable Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta square Corrected Model Grammar competence .830 1 .830 .413 .641 .009 Oral proficiency .507 1 .507 .313 .723 .002 Intercept Grammar competence 22.09 1 22.09 521.06 .000 .414 Oral proficiency 24.34 1 24.34 426.79 .000 .082 Group Grammar competence .690 1 .690 .401 .641 .007 Oral proficiency .307 1 .307 .213 .401 .005 Error Grammar competence 4.059 78 4.059 334.204 .000 .062 Oral proficiency 4.250 78 4.250 224.395 .000 .055 Total Grammar competence 17.172 84 .226 Oral proficiency 38.314 84 .504 Corrected Total Grammar competence 1290.862 81 16.985 Oral proficiency 1341.147 81 17.647 a . R Squared =.003 (Adjusted R Squared= −.009) b . R Squared =.007 (Adjusted R Squared= −.006) The mean score of grammar competence for the experimental group (M = 74,15, SD = 9.628) was significantly greater than that of the control group (M = 47.31, SD = 7.714). A similar assessment of oral proficiency revealed that the experimental group had a greater mean (M = 75.07, SD = 3.88) score than the control group (M = 47.31, SD = 7.718). Thus, it could be concluded that instructional scaffolding enhances students’ grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency (Table 6). Table 6: Post-treatment of Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics Groups Mean Stad. deviation N Grammar competence Experimental group 74.15 9.628 43 Control group 47.31 7.714 41 Total 61.45 16.062 84 Oral speaking proficiency Experimental group 75.07 3.882 43 Control group 47.31 7.714 41 Total 61.94 15.176 84 Paired Samples T-test Results Based on the paired samples t-test results, there were statistically significant differences between pretreatment and post-treatment grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency for the experimental group. The pre-treatment score of the experimental group’s grammar competence (M = 33.94, SD = 3.550) was considerably less than the post-treatment score of grammar competence (M = 38.56, SD = 3.594) t (41) = − 11.047, p < 0.01(two-tailed) (Table 7). Table 7: Experimental group paired samples statistics Paired samples statistics Mean N Standard deviation Stand. error mean Pair-1 Pre Grammar competence 33.94 43 3.550 .583 Post Grammar competence 38.56 41 3.594 .590 Pair -2 Pre Oral speaking proficiency 22.75 43 2.922 .456 Post­-Oral-speak. proficiency 27.60 41 3.419 .534 By the same token, in Table 8, the mean score of pretreatment of the experimental group in Oral speaking proficiency (M = 22.75, SD = 2.92) was to a great extent less than the post-treatment mean score of the experimental group (M = 27.60, SD = 2.922), t(41) = -2.583, p < 0.01(two-tailed). The mean score difference of grammar competency was - 1.621 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from lower - 1.919 to upper 3.324. The eta square statistics 0.486 indicated a large effect size. The mean score difference of oral speaking proficiency on the other hand - .856 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower -1.521 to upper 2.856. The eta square statistics 0.539 indicated a large effect size. The alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table 8). Table 8: Experimental Group Paired Samples T-test Paired samples statistics Paired differences t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Devia. Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair, 1 Pre Grammar competence -1.621 -8929 -1467 -1.9193 3.324 -11.047 36 .000 Post Grammar competence Pair, 2 Pre Oral speaking proficiency -.8536 2.116 -33049 -1.521 2.856 -2.583 40 .000 Post-oral speaking proficiency Like the experimental group, a paired samples t-test was conducted on two occasions to evaluate the mean score differences of the control group. Both groups filled out questionnaires before and after the treatment schedule was conducted for the experimental group. The mean value of grammar competence before taking the course (M=31.34, SD=0.349) was comparable with the mean score of grammar competence after taking the course (M=33.82, SD=0.321) t (41) = −8.47 p>0.01(092) (two-tailed) (Table 9) Table 9: Control group paired samples statistics Paired samples statistics Mean N Standard deviation Stand. error mean Pair-1 Pre Grammar Competence 31.34 43 .349 .008 Post Grammar competence 33.82 41 .321 .047 Pair -2 Pre Oral speaking proficiency 32.57 43 .291 .050 Post-oral speaking proficiency 33.01 41 .301 .039 If you look at Table 10 below, the mean score of oral speaking proficiency before taking the course (M=32.57, SD=.291) was proportionate with the mean score of the control group after taking the course (M=33.01, SD=0.301) t(41) = 2.583, p>0.01(0.064) (two-tailed). The mean score difference for grammar competence was -.158 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower −3.919 to upper -1.332. The mean score difference for oral speaking proficiency was only 0.796 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower 1.521 to upper 4.857. In both control paired sample tests, since p>0.01, the alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table 10). Table 10: Control group paired samples t-test. Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df Sig.(2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 Grammar Pretest –Experiment, grammar. -.158 5.673 .1467 -3.919 -1.323 -4.473 41 .092 Grammar Posttest Experiment, grammar Pair 2 Oral speaking Pretest Control. Grammar. .796 2.688 .3304 1.521 4.857 2.583 40 .064 Oral speaking Posttest Control grammar. Discussion The major objective of this study was to examine whether instructional scaffolding enhances EFL students' grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation based on the pre-and post-test results of two groups exposed to scaffolding strategies. The results showed a significant difference in the mean scores between the two groups. This finding is consistent with a study conducted by Nwosu, (2011) at Ebonyi State University, Nigeria, which examined The Effects of Instructional Scaffolding on the Achievement of Male and Female Students in Financial Accounting in Secondary Schools in Abakaliki Urban, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Another intervention study by Van de Pol et al., (2012b); (van de Pol et al., 2015) explored the effects of scaffolding in the classroom, specifically focusing on support contingency and student independent working time concerning student achievement, task effort, and appreciation of support. For their study, both control and experimental group participants were selected from the English department and taught using the same method, with similar materials and activities. They received equal feedback and instruction from the same teacher for the same duration. Pre-intervention assessments of participants' grammar and oral speaking proficiency indicated that the two groups were comparable. The study found statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups in the combined dependent variables: grammar competence and oral proficiency. Based on these findings, the study concluded that instructional scaffolding can improve students' grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Following the MANOVA results, paired sample t-tests were conducted. For the experimental group, the t-test results indicated significant differences in grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation before and after the treatment (Jmp, 2008). In contrast, for the control group, no statistically significant differences were found in grammar competence, oral proficiency, or motivation between the pre-and post-test results. Regarding motivation, both groups completed motivation questionnaires before and after the treatment. The experimental group’s mean score on motivation towards grammar and oral proficiency was notably higher than that of the control group. For example, the experimental group’s mean score was substantially better when performing grammar tasks, and they reported increased confidence and enjoyment in their verbal proficiency. This suggests that having a solid foundation in grammar and oral proficiency in language classes is crucial, as it helps students express themselves more clearly and confidently. On the other hand, the control group showed lower mean scores, indicating dissatisfaction with grammar and oral speaking. They perceived grammar and oral proficiency as difficult and often avoided speaking tasks. According to Sawir (2005), the control group felt frustrated and unsatisfied with grammar tasks and oral presentations. They struggled to organize their thoughts when speaking, avoided verbal tasks, and found it challenging to articulate appropriate vocabulary in the target language. The results of this study align with international studies, such as the one by Nwosu (2011) at Ebonyi State University, Nigeria, which examined the effects of instructional scaffolding on students' achievement in Financial Accounting. The study found that the scaffolding strategy outperformed the conventional method in improving students’ achievement, with no significant gender differences. Similarly, a local study by Alehegn Abune, (2019), at Debre Markos University examined the effects of peer scaffolding on grammar proficiency development. The findings revealed that the experimental group showed significant improvement in grammar proficiency, supporting the effectiveness of peer scaffolding as an intervention for grammar development. Conclusion This study examined the effects of instructional scaffolding on EFL learners’ grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. The results showed that scaffolding enhanced students’ grammar knowledge and verbal proficiency. Specifically, participants in the experimental group demonstrated greater confidence during oral presentations, found grammar tasks more enjoyable, and improved their oral proficiency. Furthermore, instructional scaffolding was shown to increase students' motivation to perform well in oral tasks, particularly in grammar and verbal presentations. However, the study did have limitations. Since the participants were not randomly selected, the two groups may not have been perfectly equal. Additionally, the study's design did not allow participants to express their views in an open-ended manner, limiting the ability to triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data. The article may also lack a comprehensive literature review on instructional scaffolding and its impact on grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation. Recommendations Based on the results, the following recommendations are made: ELT Programs in Ethiopia: College trainees should be encouraged to scaffold their knowledge of grammar and oral speaking to improve their writing attitudes and achievement goal orientations (Mijena, 2013; Wondimtegegn, 2020) Future Research: Researchers are encouraged to replicate this model and conduct further studies on reflection-supported learning of writing skills and other language skills. Curriculum Design: The Regional State Education Office, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, should implement instructional scaffolding strategies in colleges, focusing on effective grammar lessons and oral speaking proficiency. Student Support: To improve their grammar and oral speaking proficiency, students should be encouraged to incorporate motivational scaffolding instruction into their language learning activities. Declarations Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval for this research project was obtained from the Jimma University Postgraduate Committee (Reference no: JU, CSSH/T2023). Additionally, as the research was conducted at the Teacher Education College, site-specific approval was granted by the corresponding Teacher Education College. The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Ethiopian PhD stud context. Participants were provided with a participant information sheet and were given ample time to consider their involvement. Written informed consent was obtained before data collection. To protect participant privacy, all data were anonymised and stored on a secure university server accessible only to the research team. Author Contribution Scaffolding in language learning is a dynamic approach that provides temporary support to learners as they acquire new language skills. It helps learners to understand new content and develop new skills, enabling them to use the new learning in different contexts without the support of scaffolding. Scaffolding can be provided for listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks in all curricular subjects and can be used to help learners form ideas and learn language. It is important to build on what learners already know about the subject and what language they already know, then support learners to achieve the next step in understanding subject content before they can work on their own. More scaffolding is needed when learners have to understand subjects which are new and unfamiliar.Scaffolding is integral to the stages of language acquisition that we guide our learners through when they are taking on a new language. Scaffolding allows for differentiated learning, where instruction can be tailored to meet the varying needs of students. The research confirms that scaffolding is an effective technique for enhancing second language learning. It promotes active engagement, improves comprehension, and helps students achieve greater language proficiency. Scaffolding is a flexible, responsive strategy for bridging knowledge gaps and facilitating progress. References Abate, H. (2008). The Effect of Communicative Grammar on the Grammatical Accuracy of Students’ Academic Writing: An Integrated Approach to TEFL . Alehegn Abune, A. (2019). Effects of peer scaffolding on students’ grammar proficiency development . https://doi.org/10.14662/IJELC2019.081 Amin Bassiri, M. (2012). THE IMPACT OF SCAFFOLDING AS A STRATEGY FOR TEACHING READING ON THE MOTIVATION OF IRANIAN L2 LEARNERS. In Bernhart (Vol. 1, Issue 1). Cramer and Castle. Atsumbe, B., Owodunni, S., Raymond, E., & Uduafemhe, M. (2018). Students’ achievement in basic electronics: Effects of scaffolding and collaborative instructional approaches. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 14 (8). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91898 Ayman, D., Mohaseb, M., & El-Bassuony, J. (2022). Using Instructional Scaffolding in the hybrid learning environment: A Critical Review. Port Said Journal of Educational Research , 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.21608/psjer.2022.160500.1004 Bansal, A. (2017). Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on High School Students’ Academic Achievement and Attitude Towards Science. International Journal of Science Technology and Management ( IJSTM) , 6 (3). Bassiri, M. A. (2012). The impact of scaffolding as a strategy for teaching reading on the motivation of Iranian L2 learners. British Journal of Social Sciences , 1 (1), 32–46. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=vI8IUd8AAAAJ&citation_for_view=vI8IUd8AAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal , 57 (3). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278 Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. In Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0 Brumfit, Christopher. (1986). The Practice of Communicative Teaching. Pergmaon Institute Of English- Oxford . https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/F044 ELT-44 The Practice of Communicative Teaching_v3.pdf Burns, A. (2019). Concepts for Teaching Speaking in the English Language Classroom 1. In Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal (Vol. 12, Issue 1). Cray, E. (2004). Grammar in the Language Classroom: Changing Approaches and Practices (review). The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes , 61 (2), 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2005.0003 Derakhshan, A., Khalili, A. N., & Beheshti, F. (2016). Developing EFL Learner’s Speaking Ability, Accuracy and Fluency. English Language and Literature Studies , 6 (2), 177. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v6n2p177 Dornyei, 2007, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics . (n.d.). Dornyei, & Zoltan. (n.d.). Questionnaires in Second Language Research Construction, Administration, and Processing . Fathi, J., & Shirazizadeh, M. (2020). The effects of a second language reading strategy instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading anxiety. Language Related Research , 11 (4). George M. Jacobs, T. S. C. F. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT paradigm. RELC Journal , 34 (1). Gibbons, Pauline. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning : teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom . Heinemann. Habib, H. (2020). Positivism and Post-positivistic Approaches to Research Professional Commitment of Secondary School Teachers View Project Positivism and Post-positivistic Approaches to Research. UGC Care Journal , 31 (17). Haimi, A., Adnan, M., Mohd, A. H., 1&2, A., Ilias, N., & Ramli, M. S. (2012). Communicative Language Teaching: difficulties, problems and limitations regarding its implementation in the Malaysian ELT context . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313798814 Hammond, Z. L. (2015). Climbing Out of the Gap Supporting Dependent Learners to Become Independent Thinkers. Culturally Responsive Teaching & the Brain . Harper, H., & Parkin, B. (n.d.). Scaffolding academic language with educationally marginalised students . Harun, H., Abdullah, N., Ab Wahab, N., & Zainuddin, N. (2019). Concept-Based Instruction: Enhancing Grammar Competence in L2 Learners. RELC Journal , 50 (2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217716505 Jacobs, G. M., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal , 34 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820303400102 Jmp, M. (2008). Introduction To Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) . 9 , 29–37. http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=mvwl.doc Khairani, R., & Sumarsih, S. (2021). TEACHER’S ROLE IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT. REGISTER: Journal of English Language Teaching of FBS-Unimed , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.24114/reg.v9i1.24648 Kunasaraphan, K. (2015). English Learning Strategy and Proficiency Level of the First-Year Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 197 , 1853–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.246 Kusumawardani, S. A., & Mardiyani, E. (2018). The Correlation Between English Grammar Competence and Speaking Fluency. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education) , 1 (6), 724. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i6.p724-733 Lerch, C. M., Bilics, A. R., & Colley, B. (2011). Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding Online. In Encyclopedia of Distance Learning . https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch317 Marzuki, D. (2023). Measuring EFL Students’ Oral Proficiency Improvement Using Teachers’ Judgment: The Effects of Two Types of Classroom Instruction. PASAA , 67 . https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.67.1.7 McLeod, S. (2018). The Theory of ‘The Zone of Proximal Development’ and ‘Scaffolding.’ The Write Pass Journal . Menggo, S., & Gunas, T. (2022). College Student’s Perception of Performance-Based Assessment Use in Boosting Speaking Ability. International Journal of Language Education , 6 (4), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v6i4.22910 Michell -Nsw, M. (2005). Collective instructional scaffolding in English as a Second Language classrooms (Vol. 20, Issue 1). Mijena, E. (2013). The Need for Professional Growth of ELT Teachers in Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal , 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v2i3.98764 Mulatu, M., Zewdu, A., Bezabih, W., & Beleke, Y. (2023). A Historical Analysis of English Language Teacher Preparation in Ethiopia: Challenges and Possible Intervention Models. Educational Research Association The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education , 2020 (4). Ngilma, S. Z. (2022). The Correlation Between Students’ Grammar Mastery and Speaking Achievement at MAN 1 Ponorogo (Issue 8.5.2017). Nwosu, B. (2011). Effects of Instructional Scaffolding on the Achievement of Male and Female Students in Financial Accounting in Secondary Schools in Abakaliki Urban of Ebonyi State, Nigeria. In Article in Current Research Journal of Social Sciences . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266574561 Pallant J. (2010). SPSS survival manual, 4th. Maidenhead. , 283. www.allenandunwin.com/spss.htm Patten, M. L. (2021). The Pearson Correlation Coefficient. In Understanding Research Methods . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266312-68 Puntambekar, S. (2022). Distributed Scaffolding: Scaffolding Students in Classroom Environments. Educational Psychology Review , 34 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09636-3 Quines, Z. M. (2023). Grammatical Competence and its Impact on Listening and Speaking Proficiency: An Analysis. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies , 11 (2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.37745/ejells.2013/vol11n2112 Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching . Roosdianna, F. F., Munir, A., & Anam, S. (2018). Teachers’ Strategies to Improve Accuracy and Fluency in Speaking. Proceeding Icon-ELite , 1 (1). Sarmiento-Campos, N. V., Lázaro-Guillermo, J. C., Silvera-Alarcón, E. N., Cuellar-Quispe, S., Huamán-Romaní, Y. L., Apaza, O. A., & Sorkheh, A. (2022). A Look at Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT): The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Method on EFL Learners’ Speaking Achievement. Education Research International , 2022 . https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3514892 Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal , 6 (5), 567–580. http://iej.cjb.net Schober, P., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia and Analgesia , 126 (5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 Silitonga, F., & Batam, U. P. (2014). The Impact of Grammatical Competence With. Jurnal Basis , 1 (2), 155–126. http://ejournal.upbatam.ac.id/index.php/basis/article/view/295 Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (n.d.). Using multivariate statistics . Tadesse Abebe, T., Davidson, L. M., & Biru, F. (2012). The Role of Instructors in Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Methodology (Vol. 2, Issue 3). www.iiste.org Thabit, S., & Ahmed, S. (2018). COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: ITS MEANING AND THE PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT. In International Journal of English Language Teaching (Vol. 6, Issue 9). www.eajournals.org Turney, S. (2022). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) | Guide & Examples. In Scribbr . Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 28 (2), 206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012a). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education , 28 (2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2011.09.009 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012b). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education , 28 (2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2011.09.009 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time concerning student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science , 43 (5), 615–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z Wondimtegegn, F. Y. (2020). Authentic ELT Material Adaptation: Drawbacks, Prevalence and Solutions: The case of Wolkite University Community School, Wolkite, Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management , 8 (01). https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v8i01.sh03 Woymo, T. H., Bachore, M. M., Jobo, M. M., Takele, M., Melese, W., Silitonga, F., Batam, U. P., Qasserras, L., O’Keeffe, A., Mark, G., Miller, C. A., Gualmini, A., FBS, L., Soegianto, G. F., Erdil, N. O., Education, T., Braga, L., Leão, C., & Alehegn Abune, A. (2024). Intermediate Grammar Students’ Motivations in Learning English. Jurnal Basis , 15 (1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.24246/j.sw.2020.v36.i1.p35-44 Yigzaw, A. (2020). Module for Communicative English Language Skills II Introduction to the Module . Zhang, T. (2023). Grammar Instruction in Communicative Language Teaching: Balancing Fluency and Accuracy for Language Proficiency. In Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences EMSS (Vol. 2023). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8938873","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":597577396,"identity":"5c97fbf7-ec6c-4cd9-b5ee-336372dec399","order_by":0,"name":"Tekeste Aynekulu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimma University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tekeste","middleName":"","lastName":"Aynekulu","suffix":""},{"id":597577398,"identity":"ef4d84ea-c05f-4adb-b269-7e190230f954","order_by":1,"name":"Tekle Ferede","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jimma University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tekle","middleName":"","lastName":"Ferede","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-22 11:53:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103575893,"identity":"18769c7b-6a3d-4fe9-9785-6da8bb2d06df","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-27 09:11:53","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62901,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDesign of the study by Temesgen\u003cem\u003e (Woymo et al., 2024),\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8938873/v1/7c7edf0ab8b71bc4789a8dc5.png"},{"id":104835051,"identity":"f8932827-956a-46f0-84a8-8c8147044e54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 17:39:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1301315,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8938873/v1/f600b0ec-9458-4c25-903f-8d6d9901df8f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on EFL Students’ Grammar Competence and Oral Proficiency: The Case of Jimma Teachers College of Education, Oromia, Ethiopia\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn communicative language teaching (CLT) classrooms, instructional scaffolding plays a significant role in promoting students\u0026apos; grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The core responsibility of a dedicated teacher is to foster students\u0026apos; academic progress through the implementation of instructional scaffolding strategies (ISS). Scaffolding is defined as a deliberate support system provided to students, guiding them through complex learning processes (Michell -Nsw, 2005). The ISS framework in language instruction motivates learners to become enthusiastic communicators. An effective language-learning process for academic purposes requires relevant teaching methods, philosophies, and strategies that enable learners to achieve competence in communicative language (Thabit \u0026amp; Ahmed, 2018). Various strategies have been identified as essential for supporting students\u0026rsquo; language achievement and fostering their independent use of the target language. (Amin Bassiri, 2012; Fathi \u0026amp; Shirazizadeh, 2020)(Kunasaraphan, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the global recognition of communicative language teaching, there has been a paradigm shift in language instruction, moving from linguistic-focused methods to more practical and communicative teaching strategies (Jacobs \u0026amp; Farrell, 2003). CLT methods, in particular, emphasize the development of effective communicative language skills. In English as a foreign language (EFL) classes, the goal is to improve students\u0026apos; communicative competence, specifically focusing on both grammar and oral proficiency. According to Haimi and Yigzaw, the pedagogical approaches to teaching grammar and speaking have garnered significant attention with the rise of CLT methods (Haimi et al., 2012; Yigzaw, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo develop students\u0026apos; understanding of grammar usage and oral proficiency effectively, teachers must employ participatory approaches Cray, (2004); Burns, (2019)\u0026amp; Harun et al., 2019). These tasks are central to the CLT approach, which focuses on interactive and active learning methods aimed at enhancing academic success. Concerning scaffolding, the CLT approach significantly influences learners\u0026rsquo; academic progress in achieving communicative competence (Harper \u0026amp; Parkin, n.d.). In Ethiopian language learning theory, training the target language for communicative purposes is considered a modern approach to language instruction (Mulatu et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLanguage learning theories primarily focus on providing insights and empowering students to become proficient facilitators in language teaching methodology. CLT has gained widespread acceptance in language teaching, and integrating CLT tasks into training courses enhances students\u0026apos; ability to achieve communicative competence (Mulatu et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo\u0026nbsp;attain independently within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Sarmiento-Campos et al., 2022). Instructional scaffolding has been regarded as an effective method for helping learners overcome linguistic challenges and develop competence in basic language skills (Brumfit, 1986). Through supportive interaction, each learner can access the scaffolding, with its intensity varying according to the degree of direct mediation and dialogue between teachers and students (Taber, 2018). Two key sociocultural perspectives regarding scaffolding are: scaffolding as co-regulatory action mediated by language and scaffolding as task-enabling assistance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLearning through scaffolding is not merely about seeking fluency or accuracy but about reconstructing the relationship between knowledge, practice, and experience (Zhang, 2023). Scaffolding helps learners improve their grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency by changing their interest in the subject matter and guiding them in constructing knowledge. By reflecting on their scaffolded experiences, students can improve their grammar and speaking skills. While traditionally, the term \u0026quot;scaffolding\u0026quot; was viewed as impractical, it has been effectively applied in literacy and education worldwide (Hammond, 2015 Gibbons, 2015). Scaffolding is not merely a form of teacher support but also serves to assist learners in constructing knowledge by cultivating, shifting, and informing their thinking (Richards \u0026amp; Rodgers, 1986). Through collaborative interaction and socialization, learning becomes a social process according to sociocultural theory (Atsumbe et al., 2018). Effective scaffolding enables students to become independent learners through ongoing practice and preparation, which is achieved by addressing their existing knowledge gaps. Scaffolding plays a crucial role in improving language acquisition and performance by exposing learners to new lessons within meaningful contexts, providing them with opportunities to practice speaking skills in the classroom (Belland, 2017). In today\u0026apos;s globalized world, grammatical communication skills are essential for success in academic and professional contexts, and scaffolding has proven effective in enhancing basic language skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Ethiopia, university trainees are often found to be below the expected level of grammatical accuracy and writing proficiency (Abate, 2008). Many instructors express dissatisfaction with their students\u0026apos; oral proficiency, particularly in academic settings. The researcher has observed directly how students feel anxiety (panic) make mistakes, and avoid speaking in English in classroom settings, especially during oral communication. This phenomenon highlights the importance of addressing these challenges through scaffolding strategies. If the matter is unaddressed, this issue negatively affects the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, the implementation of scaffolding strategies in EFL learning is expected to improve students\u0026apos; communicative grammar competence and oral-speaking proficiency (Bax, 2003) (George M. Jacobs, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristics of Scaffolder in the Teaching-learning Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScaffolding in language education is a strategic method where temporary support is provided to learners to help them reach their full potential and enhance their understanding. This support, often applied in instructional settings, is gradually reduced as learners gain the necessary skills to function independently (Ayman et al., 2022). In language teaching, scaffolding specifically involves the provision of crucial support to help students grasp new linguistic concepts, especially when learning oral communication skills. Bansal (2017), highlights three key features of scaffolding: effective communication, collaboration, and the nature of delivering temporary support. These elements ensure that students receive assistance tailored to their current development levels, often described through Vygotsky\u0026apos;s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Puntambekar, 2022). According to this theory, learning occurs most effectively when the support provided is just beyond the learner\u0026apos;s current ability, pushing them to new levels of understanding and capability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of grammar and oral proficiency, scaffolding plays a critical role in promoting better understanding and effective communication. Correct grammatical use is integral to successful communication, and scaffolding is one of the ways to ensure that learners gain mastery over the grammatical structures needed for fluent speech. Grammar in oral tasks is essential not only for understanding but also for making a positive impression during assessments. For students, strong grammar skills contribute to improved speaking competence, particularly in oral presentations or during speaking assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Role of Teachers in Teaching Grammar and Oral Speaking Skills\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the tertiary level, teachers are essential in scaffolding grammar instruction to improve students\u0026apos; speaking competence. According to Tadesse Abebe et al., (2012), teachers must design learning experiences that encourage active student participation, with a focus on grammar as it relates to speaking skills. This emphasis is essential since grammatical proficiency directly influences how effectively students can communicate in oral tasks. In higher education settings, students\u0026apos; ability to use grammar correctly is integral to their performance in speaking assessments, where fluency and accuracy are tested (Derakhshan et al., 2016), (Roosdianna, F. F., Munir, A., \u0026amp; Anam, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teacher\u0026apos;s role is multifaceted, as they help students develop grammatical skills necessary for fluency and clear speech while also fostering an environment where students feel confident to speak. The aim is to reduce anxiety and build confidence, allowing students to practice using grammar in realistic, communicative contexts. As Khairani \u0026amp; Sumarsih, (2021) suggest, scaffolding helps students engage with grammar more dynamically and improve their speaking proficiency through repeated guided practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerformance-Based Classroom Tasks in Grammar and Oral Speaking Skills\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeaching grammar in language classrooms should be adapted to incorporate performance-based tasks that assess both accuracy and fluency. In English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, grammar has traditionally received significant attention, but students often find it challenging to apply grammatical rules in spoken language, particularly when trying to articulate complex thoughts. Research by Menggo \u0026amp; Gunas, (2022) and others highlights that despite its importance, grammar remains a barrier for students trying to speak fluently. Instructional scaffolding, especially in a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) environment, can bridge this gap (George M. Jacobs, 2003; Jacobs \u0026amp; Farrell, 2003). By emphasizing real communication tasks such as debates, discussions, and presentations, scaffolding helps students practice grammar within meaningful contexts. These tasks encourage students to engage in active learning, improving both their grammatical understanding and their ability to express themselves orally in real-world situations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Relationship between Grammar and Oral Speaking Proficiency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings show that there is strong connection between grammar competence and speaking proficiency. Scholars by Kusumawardani \u0026amp; Mardiyani, (2018) and Ngilma, (2022), stress that grammar competence is essential for both accuracy and fluency in speaking. Fluent speakers tend to have a strong command of grammar, which helps them avoid errors while producing speech in real-time. Conversely, students with weaker grammatical knowledge often struggle with fluency, as they may become too focused on grammatical correctness rather than communication. As Silitonga \u0026amp; Batam, (2014) and Quines, (2023) argue, mastering grammatical structures enables students to express themselves more easily and naturally. Thus, balancing grammar instruction with opportunities for communicative practice can help students build both accuracy and fluency, resulting in more effective oral communication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement of the Problem\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the acknowledged importance of scaffolding in language acquisition, many students in tertiary settings struggle with both grammar and oral speaking skills, especially in English. The researchers have observed that students in communicative language teaching classrooms face challenges using grammar effectively during oral presentations, group discussions, and other speaking tasks. This lack of grammatical competence often leads to students being hesitant to engage in communication tasks, which ultimately affects their performance in oral assessments. Instructional scaffolding, though recognized for its potential to enhance language learning, has not yet been fully implemented in addressing the specific grammar and speaking challenges that students face in these contexts. This gap in practice is particularly concerning since scaffolding has been shown to improve language skills, but it has not been adapted systematically for EFL students\u0026rsquo; needs in real classroom settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Purpose of the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study is to examine the impact of instructional scaffolding on EFL students\u0026apos; grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Through the application of scaffolding in the context of CLT, the study aims to explore how targeted support in grammar instruction can lead to better oral communication skills. The study seeks to address the following specific objectives:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo investigate the effect of instructional scaffolding on EFL students\u0026rsquo; grammar competence in CLT classroom settings.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo determine the effect of instructional scaffolding on EFL students\u0026apos; oral speaking proficiency in the CLT context.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypotheses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following hypotheses were formulated for this study:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003eO\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: There is no statistically significant difference in grammar competence between EFL students in experimental and control groups during pre-and post-tests.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003eA1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: There is a statistically significant difference in grammar competence between EFL students in experimental and control groups during pre-and post-tests.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003eO2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eThere is no statistically significant difference in oral speaking proficiency between EFL students in pre-and post-tests.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003eA2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003eThere is a statistically significant difference in oral speaking proficiency between EFL students in pre-and post-tests.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Paradigm and Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study follows the post-positivism paradigm (Habib, 2020) to investigate the effects of instructional scaffolding on EFL students\u0026apos; grammar competence and oral proficiency. The quasi-experimental design, including pre-and post-tests with experimental and control groups, was employed to measure the impact of scaffolding. Data from questionnaires and assessments were collected to evaluate changes in grammar competence and speaking proficiency before and after the intervention. The study aims to provide empirical evidence on how scaffolding can enhance language learning in EFL settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study aims to address the communication challenges faced by college students in using grammar and speaking English effectively. Through the application of instructional scaffolding, this research hopes to demonstrate a significant improvement in both grammar and oral speaking proficiency, thereby supporting more effective communicative language teaching practices in EFL contexts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong East African countries, Ethiopia is a multi-national and multi-ethnic nation, consisting of 12 regional states and 2 administrative cities. Jimma Zone, located in the southwest of Oromia, is one of the largest and most densely populated regions. Jimma College of Teacher Education, a government-run institution, is located in Jimma town and was established in 1961. It is one of the oldest and most resource-rich colleges in Ethiopia, training students in five major fields. The college has six departments, and freshman students are organized into five streams: Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Language Studies, Sports, Aesthetics, and Education. Social Science and Leadership students were selected for this study using a lottery method. Freshman students were purposively chosen because Communicative English Language Skills-I (FLen-101) is a common course for all first-year students. One of the course objectives is to improve the student\u0026apos;s English language proficiency for communication purposes. During scaffolding, grammar awareness and oral-speaking proficiency are developed through various communicative exercises.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Population and Setting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in South-West Ethiopia, specifically in the Jimma Zone of the Oromia region, at the Jimma College of Education. There are thirteen teacher colleges in the Oromia regional state, and Jimma College is considered one of the three centers of excellence for teacher education training, offering both diploma and degree programs for future teachers. Convenience sampling was used to select Jimma College due to its accessibility, the willingness of participants to volunteer, and their familiarity with the setting \u0026nbsp;(Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei \u0026amp; Zoltan, n.d.). The study population consisted of 84 EFL trainees enrolled in the college\u0026apos;s degree program. Grammar and oral proficiency tests were administered to examine the impact of instructional scaffolding on the grammatical competence and oral proficiency of the EFL students. Participants were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Gathering Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess participants\u0026apos; grammar competence, 50 grammar test items were adapted from intermediate English grammar sources of Cambridge University Press (CPU, 2019). This test was recently used to measure the grammar knowledge of trainees. To evaluate participants\u0026apos; oral speaking proficiency, five items from G.N. Lansdown\u0026apos;s \u003cem\u003eAfrican Animal Stories\u003c/em\u003e (London, Macmillan English, New York Press) were adapted, as they provided relevant, contextual oral speaking assessments. To test the reliability of the instruments, Pearson\u0026rsquo;s product-moment correlation coefficients (r) were calculated using SPSS (Patten, 2021\u003cu\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/u\u003eTurney, 2022)\u003cu\u003e.\u003c/u\u003e The tests were found to be reliable, with correlation coefficients (r) of 0.697 for grammar competence and 0.657 for oral proficiency. According to Schober \u0026amp; Schwarte, (2018), when the correlation coefficient (r) is above 0.7, the study tools have a strong correlation, making them suitable for data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperimental Group Training\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experimental group received four hours of scaffolding strategy instruction, adapted to align with the participants\u0026apos; course content (Lerch et al., 2011;(McLeod, 2018). The participants were informed about the use of instructional scaffolding strategies and how to enhance their grammar and oral speaking skills in the context of the communicative English language skills course.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers provided scaffolding strategy practice to the treatment group, encouraging them to explore useful elements. Each point was discussed, and any ambiguities were addressed by interacting with the participants and responding to their feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchedule for the Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study participants attended regular courses for three hours per week. Out of the 16 weeks assigned for the study, 12 weeks were dedicated to the treatment. Grammar and oral speaking questions were prepared based on the communicative English language skills I \u0026amp; II course modules. The study groups followed a process approach, followed by a product approach, in which participants first practiced grammar exercises and then engaged in oral speaking tasks. They were evaluated using objective tests and verbal presentations. Both groups were scored based on Cambridge University Press (CUP) (2019) keys and oral rubric scoring systems from (Marzuki, 2023) to ensure valid results. Before each grammar and oral speaking test, the researchers assessed participants\u0026apos; responses and oral presentations, focusing on grammatical errors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected using grammar and oral proficiency tests to determine whether there were any differences in the mean scores of the dependent variables. Participants took a pre-test before the treatment to check if the experimental and control groups had similar mean scores for grammar and oral proficiency. After the treatment, the same procedures were followed to gather post-treatment data. During the study, participants in the treatment group practiced using the scaffolding based on the model of contingency teaching (MCT) adapted from.(Van de Pol et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePre- and post-test data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 (Pallant J, 2010). One-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze grammar and oral proficiency tests. MANOVA is preferred for controlling type I errors and allows simultaneous comparisons of two or more related dependent variables (Tabachnick et al., n.d.). A paired samples t-test analysis was also conducted to investigate the mean score differences before and after treatment in both the experimental and control groups. Means and standard deviations obtained from the MANOVA and paired samples t-test outputs were used to explain the study results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers obtained informed consent from participants and ensured participant privacy by assigning numbers instead of names to the returned research instruments. The study participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and consent was obtained from the Language Streams and Language Department at Jimma College of Teacher Education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results of the Study","content":"\u003cp\u003ePre-post-test data were collected from both the control and experimental groups. The pre-treatment data helped determine whether the two groups were similar in terms of their grammar and oral proficiency levels. Post-treatment data were gathered to assess the impact of instructional scaffolding on the participants\u0026rsquo; grammar and oral proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-Treatment Study Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn table 1, a one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the effects on students\u0026apos; grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Preliminary assumption tests showed no serious violations. The MANOVA analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups in terms of grammar competence and oral proficiency before the treatment (Wilk\u0026rsquo;s lambda = 0.614, F (4, 81) = 25.479, p \u0026gt; 0.01, partial eta = 0.486). Therefore, the two groups were comparable in terms of grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation before the treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e: \u003cstrong\u003ePretreatment Multivariate tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMultivariate Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 28.5714%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis df\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError df\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial Eta Squared\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.2986%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilk\u0026rsquo;s Lambda\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.2729%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0614\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.479\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.503\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.486\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExact statistic\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eANOVA follow-up was conducted separately on both dependent variables and no statistically significant difference was observed between the control and experimental groups. As shown in in table 2, Grammar competence F= (1, 78) = 0.401, p\u0026gt;0.641, partial eta square=0.007, and Oral speaking proficiency F= (1, 78) = 0.716, p=307 partial eta square=0.005 Hence, the control and experimental groups participants are\u0026nbsp;corresponding in their grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency when examined separately (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Pretreatment Separate tests of dependent variables (ANOVA result)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 545px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTests of between-subjects effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDependent variable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType III sum of squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial eta square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrected Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e321.060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e119.937\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e119.937\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e426.797\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.082\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGroup\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.690\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.690\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.401\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.641\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.007\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.307\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.307\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.213\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.401\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.005\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e334.204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e224.395\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.226\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrected Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1290.862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.985\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1341.147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.647\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e. R Squared =.003 (Adjusted R Squared= \u0026minus;.007)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e. R Squared =.007 (Adjusted R Squared= \u0026minus;.005)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, in Table 3, the mean score of grammar competence for the treatment group (M = 36.9, SD = 3.55) was matched with that of the control group (M = 38.56, SD = 3.59) and similarly, the mean score of oral speaking proficiency in the treatment group correspond (M = 25.75, SD = 2.92) to that of the control group (M = 26.60, SD = 3.41). Before the treatment, the experimental group and the control group had almost similar grammar and oral speaking proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Pre-Treatment of Descriptive Statistics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStad. deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.945\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.567\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral\u0026nbsp;speaking proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 223px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA post-treatment study using\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMANOVA Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNow, a one-way between-groups Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was formed to test the effect of instructional scaffolding strategy on enhancing grammar and oral speaking proficiency of college students. The initial assumptions testing was conducted to examine normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliners, multicollinearity, and homogeneity of variance matrices. No serious violation was found. The analysis of one-way between the groups MANOVA produced statistically significant differences between the experimental and the control group on the combined dependent variables grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency (Wilks\u0026rsquo; Lambda = .779, F (4, 81) = 25.42, p \u0026lt; 0.001, partial eta square = 0.539) (Table 4). The result of instructional scaffoldings\u0026rsquo; has a statistically significant effect on students\u0026rsquo; grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. Hence, the alternative hypotheses were accepted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4: Post-treatment Multivariate tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 623px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultivariate Test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis df\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError df\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial Eta Squared\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilk\u0026rsquo;s Lambda\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.539\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Exact statistic\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;a\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA follow-up ANOVA adjusted to the Bonferroni method was conducted (p = 0.01/2 = 0.005) to test the two dependent variables separately. There were statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups with F (1, 78) = 34.463, p \u0026lt; .001, eta partial square = 0.262 for grammar competence and the result of writing achievement goal orientations was also statistically significantly different with F (1, 78) = .830, p \u0026lt; 0.001, partial eta square = 0.009. Consequently, it can be said that instructional scaffolding of grammar has a positive effect on students\u0026rsquo; oral speaking proficiency. The alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table\u0026nbsp;5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: Post-treatment Separate tests of dependent variables (ANOVA result)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 545px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTests of between-subjects effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDependent variable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType III sum of squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial eta square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrected Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.830\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.830\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.413\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.507\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.507\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.313\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.723\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e521.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e426.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.082\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.401\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e334.204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e224.395\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.226\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrected Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1290.862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.985\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1341.147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.647\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e. R Squared =.003 (Adjusted R Squared= \u0026minus;.009)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e. R Squared =.007 (Adjusted R Squared= \u0026minus;.006)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean score of grammar competence for the experimental group (M = 74,15, SD = 9.628) was significantly greater than that of the control group (M = 47.31, SD = 7.714). \u0026nbsp;A similar assessment of oral proficiency revealed that the experimental group had a greater mean (M = 75.07, SD = 3.88) score than the control group (M = 47.31, SD = 7.718). Thus, it could be concluded that instructional scaffolding enhances students\u0026rsquo; grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency (Table 6).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6: Post-treatment of Descriptive Statistics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStad. deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.628\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.714\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral\u0026nbsp;speaking proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.882\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.714\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePaired Samples T-test Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the paired samples t-test results, there were statistically significant differences between pretreatment and post-treatment grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency for the experimental group. The pre-treatment score of the experimental group\u0026rsquo;s grammar competence (M = 33.94, SD = 3.550) was considerably less than the post-treatment score of grammar competence (M = 38.56, SD = 3.594) t (41) = \u0026minus; 11.047, p \u0026lt; 0.01(two-tailed) (Table 7).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7: Experimental group paired samples statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 576px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Paired samples statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard deviation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStand.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eerror mean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre Grammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.94\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.550\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.583\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost Grammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.594\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.590\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair -2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre\u0026nbsp;Oral speaking proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.922\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.456\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost\u0026shy;-Oral-speak. proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.419\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.534\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy the same token, in Table 8, the mean score of pretreatment of the experimental group in Oral speaking proficiency (M = 22.75, SD = 2.92) was to a great extent less than the post-treatment mean score of the experimental group (M = 27.60, SD = 2.922), t(41) = -2.583, p \u0026lt; 0.01(two-tailed). The mean score difference of grammar competency was -\u0026nbsp;1.621 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from lower -\u0026nbsp;1.919 to upper 3.324. The eta square statistics 0.486 indicated a large effect size. The mean score difference of oral speaking proficiency on the other hand -\u0026nbsp;.856 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower -1.521 to upper 2.856. The eta square statistics 0.539 indicated a large effect size. The alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table\u0026nbsp;8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8: Experimental Group Paired Samples T-test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"672\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"10\" style=\"width: 672px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePaired samples statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 330px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePaired differences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Std. \u0026nbsp; Devia.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval of the Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair, 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre Grammar competence\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; -1.621\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8929\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1467\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.9193\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-11.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost Grammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair, 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre Oral speaking proficiency \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;-.8536\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-33049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.521\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; 2.856\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.583\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-oral speaking proficiency\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLike the experimental group, a paired samples t-test was conducted on two occasions to evaluate the mean score differences of the control group. Both groups filled out questionnaires before and after the treatment schedule was conducted for the experimental group. The mean value of grammar competence before taking the course (M=31.34, SD=0.349) was comparable with the mean score of grammar competence after taking the course (M=33.82, SD=0.321) t (41) = \u0026minus;8.47 p\u0026gt;0.01(092) (two-tailed) (Table 9)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9: Control group paired samples statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 606px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Paired samples statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard deviation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStand.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eerror mean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre Grammar Competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.349\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost Grammar competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.82\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePair -2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre\u0026nbsp;Oral speaking proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.291\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.050\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-oral\u0026nbsp;speaking proficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.301\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf you look at Table\u0026nbsp;10 below, the mean score of oral speaking proficiency before taking the course (M=32.57, SD=.291) was proportionate with the mean score of the control group after taking the course (M=33.01, SD=0.301) t(41) = 2.583, p\u0026gt;0.01(0.064) (two-tailed). The mean score difference for grammar competence was -.158 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower \u0026minus;3.919 to upper -1.332. The mean score difference for oral speaking proficiency was only 0.796 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from the lower 1.521 to upper 4.857. In both control paired sample tests, since p\u0026gt;0.01, the alternative hypotheses were therefore accepted (Table 10).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 10: Control group\u0026nbsp;paired samples t-test.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"672\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"10\" style=\"width: 672px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePaired Samples Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 214px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 284px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePaired Differences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.(2- \u0026nbsp;tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval of the Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePair 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar Pretest \u0026ndash;Experiment, grammar.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.158\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.1467\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.919\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.323\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.473\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrammar Posttest Experiment, grammar\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePair 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral speaking Pretest Control. Grammar.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.796\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.688\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.3304\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.521\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.583\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.064\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOral speaking Posttest Control grammar.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe major objective of this study was to examine whether instructional scaffolding enhances EFL students\u0026apos; grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation based on the pre-and post-test results of two groups exposed to scaffolding strategies. The results showed a significant difference in the mean scores between the two groups. This finding is consistent with a study conducted by Nwosu, (2011)\u0026nbsp;at Ebonyi State University, Nigeria, which examined The Effects of Instructional Scaffolding on the Achievement of Male and Female Students in Financial Accounting in Secondary Schools in Abakaliki Urban, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother intervention study by Van de Pol et al., (2012b); (van de Pol et al., 2015) explored the effects of scaffolding in the classroom, specifically focusing on support contingency and student independent working time concerning student achievement, task effort, and appreciation of support. For their study, both control and experimental group participants were selected from the English department and taught using the same method, with similar materials and activities. They received equal feedback and instruction from the same teacher for the same duration. Pre-intervention assessments of participants\u0026apos; grammar and oral speaking proficiency indicated that the two groups were comparable. The study found statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups in the combined dependent variables: grammar competence and oral proficiency. Based on these findings, the study concluded that instructional scaffolding can improve students\u0026apos; grammar knowledge and oral proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the MANOVA results, paired sample t-tests were conducted. For the experimental group, the t-test results indicated significant differences in grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation before and after the treatment (Jmp, 2008). In contrast, for the control group, no statistically significant differences were found in grammar competence, oral proficiency, or motivation between the pre-and post-test results. Regarding motivation, both groups completed motivation questionnaires before and after the treatment. The experimental group\u0026rsquo;s mean score on motivation towards grammar and oral proficiency was notably higher than that of the control group. For example, the experimental group\u0026rsquo;s mean score was substantially better when performing grammar tasks, and they reported increased confidence and enjoyment in their verbal proficiency. This suggests that having a solid foundation in grammar and oral proficiency in language classes is crucial, as it helps students express themselves more clearly and confidently.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the control group showed lower mean scores, indicating dissatisfaction with grammar and oral speaking. They perceived grammar and oral proficiency as difficult and often avoided speaking tasks. According to Sawir (2005), the control group felt frustrated and unsatisfied with grammar tasks and oral presentations. They struggled to organize their thoughts when speaking, avoided verbal tasks, and found it challenging to articulate appropriate vocabulary in the target language.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study align with international studies, such as the one by Nwosu (2011) at Ebonyi State University, Nigeria, which examined the effects of instructional scaffolding on students\u0026apos; achievement in Financial Accounting. The study found that the scaffolding strategy outperformed the conventional method in improving students\u0026rsquo; achievement, with no significant gender differences. Similarly, a local study by Alehegn Abune, (2019), at Debre Markos University examined the effects of peer scaffolding on grammar proficiency development. The findings revealed that the experimental group showed significant improvement in grammar proficiency, supporting the effectiveness of peer scaffolding as an intervention for grammar development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the effects of instructional scaffolding on EFL learners\u0026rsquo; grammar competence and oral speaking proficiency. The results showed that scaffolding enhanced students\u0026rsquo; grammar knowledge and verbal proficiency. Specifically, participants in the experimental group demonstrated greater confidence during oral presentations, found grammar tasks more enjoyable, and improved their oral proficiency. Furthermore, instructional scaffolding was shown to increase students\u0026apos; motivation to perform well in oral tasks, particularly in grammar and verbal presentations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the study did have limitations. Since the participants were not randomly selected, the two groups may not have been perfectly equal. Additionally, the study\u0026apos;s design did not allow participants to express their views in an open-ended manner, limiting the ability to triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data. The article may also lack a comprehensive literature review on instructional scaffolding and its impact on grammar competence, oral proficiency, and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the results, the following recommendations are made:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eELT Programs in Ethiopia:\u003c/strong\u003e College trainees should be encouraged to scaffold their knowledge of grammar and oral speaking to improve their writing attitudes and achievement goal orientations (Mijena, 2013; Wondimtegegn, 2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFuture Research:\u003c/strong\u003e Researchers are encouraged to replicate this model and conduct further studies on reflection-supported learning of writing skills and other language skills.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurriculum Design:\u003c/strong\u003e The Regional State Education Office, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, should implement instructional scaffolding strategies in colleges, focusing on effective grammar lessons and oral speaking proficiency.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudent Support:\u003c/strong\u003e To improve their grammar and oral speaking proficiency, students should be encouraged to incorporate motivational scaffolding instruction into their language learning activities.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEthical Considerations: Ethical approval for this research project was obtained from the Jimma University Postgraduate Committee (Reference no: JU, CSSH/T2023). Additionally, as the research was conducted at the Teacher Education College, site-specific approval was granted by the corresponding Teacher Education College. The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Ethiopian PhD stud context. Participants were provided with a participant information sheet and were given ample time to consider their involvement. Written informed consent was obtained before data collection. To protect participant privacy, all data were anonymised and stored on a secure university server accessible only to the research team.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eScaffolding in language learning is a dynamic approach that provides temporary support to learners as they acquire new language skills. It helps learners to understand new content and develop new skills, enabling them to use the new learning in different contexts without the support of scaffolding. Scaffolding can be provided for listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks in all curricular subjects and can be used to help learners form ideas and learn language. It is important to build on what learners already know about the subject and what language they already know, then support learners to achieve the next step in understanding subject content before they can work on their own. More scaffolding is needed when learners have to understand subjects which are new and unfamiliar.Scaffolding is integral to the stages of language acquisition that we guide our learners through when they are taking on a new language. Scaffolding allows for differentiated learning, where instruction can be tailored to meet the varying needs of students. The research confirms that scaffolding is an effective technique for enhancing second language learning. It promotes active engagement, improves comprehension, and helps students achieve greater language proficiency. Scaffolding is a flexible, responsive strategy for bridging knowledge gaps and facilitating progress.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbate, H. (2008). \u003cem\u003eThe Effect of Communicative Grammar on the Grammatical Accuracy of Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Writing: An Integrated Approach to TEFL\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlehegn Abune, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eEffects of peer scaffolding on students\u0026rsquo; grammar proficiency development\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.14662/IJELC2019.081\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmin Bassiri, M. (2012). THE IMPACT OF SCAFFOLDING AS A STRATEGY FOR TEACHING READING ON THE MOTIVATION OF IRANIAN L2 LEARNERS. In \u003cem\u003eBernhart\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1, Issue 1). Cramer and Castle.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtsumbe, B., Owodunni, S., Raymond, E., \u0026amp; Uduafemhe, M. (2018). Students\u0026rsquo; achievement in basic electronics: Effects of scaffolding and collaborative instructional approaches. \u003cem\u003eEurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(8). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91898\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyman, D., Mohaseb, M., \u0026amp; El-Bassuony, J. (2022). Using Instructional Scaffolding in the hybrid learning environment: A Critical Review. \u003cem\u003ePort Said Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.21608/psjer.2022.160500.1004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBansal, A. (2017). Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on High School Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Achievement and Attitude Towards Science. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Technology and Management ( IJSTM)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBassiri, M. A. (2012). The impact of scaffolding as a strategy for teaching reading on the motivation of Iranian L2 learners. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32\u0026ndash;46. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation\u0026amp;hl=en\u0026amp;user=vI8IUd8AAAAJ\u0026amp;citation_for_view=vI8IUd8AAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. \u003cem\u003eELT Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelland, B. R. (2017). Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. In \u003cem\u003eInstructional Scaffolding in STEM Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrumfit, Christopher. (1986). The Practice of Communicative Teaching. \u003cem\u003ePergmaon Institute Of English- Oxford\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/F044 ELT-44 The Practice of Communicative Teaching_v3.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurns, A. (2019). Concepts for Teaching Speaking in the English Language Classroom 1. In \u003cem\u003eJournal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 12, Issue 1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCray, E. (2004). Grammar in the Language Classroom: Changing Approaches and Practices (review). \u003cem\u003eThe Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(2), 283\u0026ndash;285. https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2005.0003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDerakhshan, A., Khalili, A. N., \u0026amp; Beheshti, F. (2016). Developing EFL Learner\u0026rsquo;s Speaking Ability, Accuracy and Fluency. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language and Literature Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 177. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v6n2p177\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eDornyei, 2007, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e. (n.d.).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDornyei, \u0026amp; Zoltan. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eQuestionnaires in Second Language Research Construction, Administration, and Processing\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFathi, J., \u0026amp; Shirazizadeh, M. (2020). The effects of a second language reading strategy instruction on Iranian EFL learners\u0026rsquo; reading comprehension and reading anxiety. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Related Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge M. Jacobs, T. S. C. F. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT paradigm. \u003cem\u003eRELC Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbons, Pauline. (2015). \u003cem\u003eScaffolding language, scaffolding learning : teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom\u003c/em\u003e. Heinemann.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHabib, H. (2020). Positivism and Post-positivistic Approaches to Research Professional Commitment of Secondary School Teachers View Project Positivism and Post-positivistic Approaches to Research. \u003cem\u003eUGC Care Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(17).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaimi, A., Adnan, M., Mohd, A. H., 1\u0026amp;2, A., Ilias, N., \u0026amp; Ramli, M. S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eCommunicative Language Teaching: difficulties, problems and limitations regarding its implementation in the Malaysian ELT context\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313798814\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHammond, Z. L. (2015). Climbing Out of the Gap Supporting Dependent Learners to Become Independent Thinkers. \u003cem\u003eCulturally Responsive Teaching \u0026amp; the Brain\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarper, H., \u0026amp; Parkin, B. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eScaffolding academic language with educationally marginalised students\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarun, H., Abdullah, N., Ab Wahab, N., \u0026amp; Zainuddin, N. (2019). Concept-Based Instruction: Enhancing Grammar Competence in L2 Learners. \u003cem\u003eRELC Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 252\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217716505\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacobs, G. M., \u0026amp; Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) paradigm. \u003cem\u003eRELC Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820303400102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJmp, M. (2008). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction To Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 29\u0026ndash;37. http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/effectSize?action=AttachFile\u0026amp;do=view\u0026amp;target=mvwl.doc\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhairani, R., \u0026amp; Sumarsih, S. (2021). TEACHER\u0026rsquo;S ROLE IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT. \u003cem\u003eREGISTER: Journal of English Language Teaching of FBS-Unimed\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.24114/reg.v9i1.24648\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKunasaraphan, K. (2015). English Learning Strategy and Proficiency Level of the First-Year Students. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e197\u003c/em\u003e, 1853\u0026ndash;1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.246\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKusumawardani, S. A., \u0026amp; Mardiyani, E. (2018). The Correlation Between English Grammar Competence and Speaking Fluency. \u003cem\u003ePROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(6), 724. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i6.p724-733\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLerch, C. M., Bilics, A. R., \u0026amp; Colley, B. (2011). Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding Online. In \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Distance Learning\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarzuki, D. (2023). Measuring EFL Students\u0026rsquo; Oral Proficiency Improvement Using Teachers\u0026rsquo; Judgment: The Effects of Two Types of Classroom Instruction. \u003cem\u003ePASAA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.67.1.7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcLeod, S. (2018). The Theory of \u0026lsquo;The Zone of Proximal Development\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Scaffolding.\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eThe Write Pass Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMenggo, S., \u0026amp; Gunas, T. (2022). College Student\u0026rsquo;s Perception of Performance-Based Assessment Use in Boosting Speaking Ability. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Language Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 423\u0026ndash;436. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v6i4.22910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMichell -Nsw, M. (2005). \u003cem\u003eCollective instructional scaffolding in English as a Second Language classrooms\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 20, Issue 1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMijena, E. (2013). The Need for Professional Growth of ELT Teachers in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eScience, Technology and Arts Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v2i3.98764\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulatu, M., Zewdu, A., Bezabih, W., \u0026amp; Beleke, Y. (2023). A Historical Analysis of English Language Teacher Preparation in Ethiopia: Challenges and Possible Intervention Models. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research Association The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2020\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgilma, S. Z. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThe Correlation Between Students\u0026rsquo; Grammar Mastery and Speaking Achievement at MAN 1 Ponorogo\u003c/em\u003e (Issue 8.5.2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNwosu, B. (2011). Effects of Instructional Scaffolding on the Achievement of Male and Female Students in Financial Accounting in Secondary Schools in Abakaliki Urban of Ebonyi State, Nigeria. In \u003cem\u003eArticle in Current Research Journal of Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266574561\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePallant J. (2010). SPSS survival manual, 4th. \u003cem\u003eMaidenhead.\u003c/em\u003e, 283. www.allenandunwin.com/spss.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatten, M. L. (2021). The Pearson Correlation Coefficient. In \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266312-68\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePuntambekar, S. (2022). Distributed Scaffolding: Scaffolding Students in Classroom Environments. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09636-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuines, Z. M. (2023). Grammatical Competence and its Impact on Listening and Speaking Proficiency: An Analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of English Language and Literature Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.37745/ejells.2013/vol11n2112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichards, J. C., \u0026amp; Rodgers, T. S. (1986). \u003cem\u003eApproaches and Methods in Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoosdianna, F. F., Munir, A., \u0026amp; Anam, S. (2018). Teachers\u0026rsquo; Strategies to Improve Accuracy and Fluency in Speaking. \u003cem\u003eProceeding Icon-ELite\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarmiento-Campos, N. V., L\u0026aacute;zaro-Guillermo, J. C., Silvera-Alarc\u0026oacute;n, E. N., Cuellar-Quispe, S., Huam\u0026aacute;n-Roman\u0026iacute;, Y. L., Apaza, O. A., \u0026amp; Sorkheh, A. (2022). A Look at Vygotsky\u0026rsquo;s Sociocultural Theory (SCT): The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Method on EFL Learners\u0026rsquo; Speaking Achievement. \u003cem\u003eEducation Research International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2022\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3514892\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. \u003cem\u003eInternational Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 567\u0026ndash;580. http://iej.cjb.net\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchober, P., \u0026amp; Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. \u003cem\u003eAnesthesia and Analgesia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1763\u0026ndash;1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilitonga, F., \u0026amp; Batam, U. P. (2014). The Impact of Grammatical Competence With. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Basis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155\u0026ndash;126. http://ejournal.upbatam.ac.id/index.php/basis/article/view/295\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., \u0026amp; Ullman, J. B. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eUsing multivariate statistics\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTadesse Abebe, T., Davidson, L. M., \u0026amp; Biru, F. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe Role of Instructors in Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Methodology\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, Issue 3). www.iiste.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThabit, S., \u0026amp; Ahmed, S. (2018). COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: ITS MEANING AND THE PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT. In \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 6, Issue 9). www.eajournals.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurney, S. (2022). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) | Guide \u0026amp; Examples. In \u003cem\u003eScribbr\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan de Pol, J., Mercer, N., \u0026amp; Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students\u0026rsquo; Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Learning Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 206\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan de Pol, J., Volman, M., \u0026amp; Beishuizen, J. (2012a). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 193\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2011.09.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan de Pol, J., Volman, M., \u0026amp; Beishuizen, J. (2012b). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 193\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2011.09.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., \u0026amp; Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time concerning student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. \u003cem\u003eInstructional Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(5), 615\u0026ndash;641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWondimtegegn, F. Y. (2020). Authentic ELT Material Adaptation: Drawbacks, Prevalence and Solutions: The case of Wolkite University Community School, Wolkite, Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific Research and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(01). https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v8i01.sh03\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoymo, T. H., Bachore, M. M., Jobo, M. M., Takele, M., Melese, W., Silitonga, F., Batam, U. P., Qasserras, L., O\u0026rsquo;Keeffe, A., Mark, G., Miller, C. A., Gualmini, A., FBS, L., Soegianto, G. F., Erdil, N. O., Education, T., Braga, L., Le\u0026atilde;o, C., \u0026amp; Alehegn Abune, A. (2024). Intermediate Grammar Students\u0026rsquo; Motivations in Learning English. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Basis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 35\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.24246/j.sw.2020.v36.i1.p35-44\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYigzaw, A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eModule for Communicative English Language Skills II Introduction to the Module\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, T. (2023). Grammar Instruction in Communicative Language Teaching: Balancing Fluency and Accuracy for Language Proficiency. In \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences EMSS\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Instructional Scaffolding Strategy (ISS), Grammar Competence (GC), Oral Proficiency (OP), Motivation, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eInstructional Scaffolding Strategy (ISS) is essential for academic purposes to boost communicative language teaching (CLT). This study was conducted to examine the effect of instructional scaffolding on grammar competency and oral speaking proficiency of EFL students at Jimma College of Teacher Education. After the pilot study had been done, data were collected using a quasi-experimental design, employing quantitative queries using the pre-post competence tests and motivation questionnaires from both treatment and control groups. The data were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). A total of 84 first-year college trainees were selected as the study\u0026rsquo;s participants. The two groups were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups using a convenience sampling technique. Communicative grammar and oral-speaking interventions were implemented in the treatment group using the contingency teaching model (CTM). The control group, however, received conventional instruction. The results indicated a significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment and control groups. Consequently, the study confirmed that ISS intervention should be integrated to enhance students' grammar confidence and spoken fluency. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating scaffolding into lessons, as it has vital implications for enhancing EFL students' collaborative learning, sense of ownership, and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on EFL Students’ Grammar Competence and Oral Proficiency: The Case of Jimma Teachers College of Education, Oromia, Ethiopia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-27 09:09:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8938873/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7a25b3e1-3fbf-4c82-a54e-fee00a053d43","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 27th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T08:28:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-27 09:09:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8938873","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8938873","identity":"rs-8938873","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}