ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice:
Techniques Employed by In-Service EFL Teachers in
Primary Education
Traducción vs. andamiaje en la práctica de la escritura:
técnicas utilizadas por docentes de ILE en Educación
Primaria
CRISTINA CASTILLO
cristina.castillo@uma.es
Universidad de Málaga
ESTHER BECERRA FUENTESAL
estherbf1212@gmail.com
Universidad de Málaga
ANNA SZCZESNIAK
annaszczesniak@uma.es
Universidad de Málaga
Fecha de recepción: 13/12/2023
Fecha de aceptación: 17/09/2024
Abstract: Writing entails one of the most difficult skills to teach in the
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom, above all in Primary
Education. The main purpose of this paper was to analyse the techniques
employed by EFL teachers in the teaching of writing. The study addressed
fundamental issues for the development of writing skill, such as approaches
to teaching writing, scaffolding and translation, the use of metacognitive
strategies, and the type of activities and resources employed by in-service
teachers. A quantitative survey was designed and administered online to 47
in-service EFL teachers in Primary Education (20 from bilingual schools and
27 from non-bilingual schools). The results showed that scaffolding was
more frequent among the EFL teachers over the translation, even though
using the mother tongue was very popular among the respondents’ answers.
Besides, EFL teachers from both cohorts pointed out that among the most
frequent metacognitive strategies were the suggestions of improvements
and the use of checklists or rubrics rather than the organisation of peer
reviews in class. The activities that best suit the practice of writing were
those in which teachers had more control (familiarisation and controlled
writing). To conclude, the respondents were unfamiliar with many of the tools
devoted to writing, being more popular the use of more general educative
2 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
tools such as Canva, Wordwall, or Padlet. Regarding the outcomes, this
study depicts the perceptions and the actual implementation of techniques of
the EFL teachers in Primary Education, leaving an open door to further
analysis in other educative stages to determine if these techniques are
confirmed or refuted in other contexts and levels.
Keywords: English as a foreign language (EFL), Writing, Scaffolding
technique, Translation, In-service EFL teachers
Resumen: La escritura es una de las destrezas lingüísticas más difíciles de
enseñar en el aula de Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (ILE), sobre todo en
Educación Primaria. El principal propósito de este trabajo es analizar las
técnicas que utilizan los docentes de ILE a la hora de enseñar la escritura.
El estudio aborda aspectos esenciales para el desarrollo de la destreza de
escritura, como enfoques para enseñar escritura, técnicas de andamiaje y
de traducción, el uso de estrategias metacognitivas, y el tipo de actividades
y recursos empleados por docentes en activo. Se diseñó un cuestionario
cuantitativo en línea al que contestaron 47 docentes de ILE de Educación
Primaria en activo (20 de centros bilingües y 27 de centros no bilingües).
Los resultados muestran que el profesorado de ILE emplea más técnicas de
andamiaje que de traducción, aunque los informantes declararon también
que recurrían a la lengua materna. Además, los docentes de ambas
muestras destacaron las sugerencias de mejora y el uso de listas de
verificación o rúbricas entre las estrategias metacognitivas más usadas, en
lugar de organizar revisión por pares para corregir en clase. Las actividades
que más se adecuan a la práctica de la escritura son aquellas en las que el
profesorado tiene más control en las mismas (familiarización y escritura
controlada). Finalmente, los informantes no conocían muchas de las
herramientas destinadas a practicar escritura, siendo muy populares las
herramientas educativas generales como Canva, Wordwall o Padlet. A la luz
de los resultados obtenidos, este estudio describe las percepciones y la
implementación real de técnicas entre el profesorado de ILE de Educación
Primaria, dejando una puerta abierta a futuros análisis en otras etapas
educativas para determinar si estas estrategias se replican o no en otros
contextos y niveles.
Palabras clave: Inglés como lengua extranjera (ILE), Escritura, Estrategias
de andamiaje, Traducción, Docentes en activo de ILE
INTRODUCTION
The teaching of writing is one of the most difficult skills to teach and
learn in the foreign language (FL) classroom. Besides, students usually see
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 3
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
the process of writing as an assessment task in which the teacher only
focuses on the errors (Nurdianingsih and Rahmawati, 2018). Despite this,
the improvement of the writing skill allows for effective communication in
current society. Moreover, we can acquire sufficient knowledge to
consolidate our oral language skills. This idea was supported by Porte
(1996), who stated that the process of writing, due to the necessity of
encountering the adequate form to express an idea, allows for the
observation of how the language works.
The difficulty when learning the writing skill derives from a series of
challenges or problems students encounter when carrying out their written
productions, as indicated by many studies around the world (Rietdijk et al.,
2018). Following Selvaraj and Aziz (2019), the most problematic issue is the
lack of communicative competence among students, required to complete
the writing task. Students first need to solidly acquire some basic vocabulary
and grammar, as well as the capacity to structure and organise the ideas in
phrases so as to achieve, in the end, a successful written production.
Therefore, one of the main challenges teachers face in teaching this skill is
to help or provide the necessary tools to generate and organise the ideas.
Another decisive factor for the efficient teaching of the skill is the
adequate selection of a strategy to teach writing. Selvaraj and Aziz (2019)
underscore that the lack of pedagogical knowledge of teachers, particularly
in relation to writing and cultural and linguistic problems, contributes to
developing incompetent writers among students. Bouroba (2012) reported
linguistic problems caused by the lack of immediate feedback in the oral
interaction through facial expressions or assent nods. This author also
stated that the process of writing involved graphological resources such as
punctuation, logical cohesion, and ideas association.
Brindle et al. (2016) pointed out that the main problems in teaching
writing are the almost inexistent practical activities of writing as a process
and the inadequate preparation of teachers to teach how to write. In their
study, they were conscious of the minimal attention the writing process and
the text revision received. Despite being proved that teachers involved
students in pre-writing activities and provided instructions about the writing,
the lessons were more teacher-oriented, leaving aside the interaction among
students, the collaborative writing, the self-assessment or the peer
assessment, leading to a loss of autonomy due to the lack of reflection in
students. Pak-Taong (2008) suggested that writing through activities gives
rise to comprehension, which, at the same time, includes a reflection
process about the topic, collection of information, organisation of the ideas,
culminating in a reflection on learning. Ghabool et al. (2012) highlight that
the main cause of these problems is the interference produced between the
4 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
mother tongue (MT) and the FL they are going to learn, since there is no
equivalence of words in both languages.
In this context, we aimed at investigating what EFL in-service teachers
employ in their classroom for helping in the writing process of their Primary-
Education students, focusing on the implementation of scaffolding
techniques or the use of translation.
1. TEACHING WRITING SKILL IN THE EFL CLASSROOM
Writing frequently serves as a form to consolidate grammar and
vocabulary in a given language. Nevertheless, we cannot forget the
communicative potential of this skill. According to Hedge (1988), tasks
involving the writing skill aim to train competent writers. Likewise, students
will be able to write complete texts conforming connected, contextualised
and adequate pieces of communication.
By taking this necessity into account, and following Bouroba (2012),
students face a content problem in which what to say and which language
will be used in their production are questioned. This difficulty is heightened
when students are not familiarised with the type of texts they have to write.
The process of writing involves different levels −linguistic and non-linguistic−
that turn it into a complex task. Four dimensions could be distinguished in
the written text production and, to address them, we must consider four
other important questions related to content, the reader, the purpose of the
text, and the type of text.
The content dimension highlights the importance of understanding the
structure and features of the type of text that will be reproduced. Hedge
(1988) differentiates between personal writings (such as notes, recipes,
diaries, reminders, etc.) and public or institutional writings (letters,
invitations, emails, news, announcements, etc.). When writing a text, we
should take into account the target audience. In the context of this
dimension, Kroll (1984) specified that, when teaching the writing skill,
students must be aware of the audience for their texts, that is, other people
apart from the teacher who may read their works. The form of expressing
ideas is the most relevant aspect of writing (Jayanti, 2019). The fourth
dimension, then, focuses on the purpose of the text. The selection of
vocabulary, style and format also depend on the purpose for which we write.
This purpose should be significant for students and close to their interests to
foster their creativity, while also being representative of the use of the written
language in real life.
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 5
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
1.1. Approaches for teaching writing
Numerous approaches and techniques to teach writing as a
productive skill have been studied in the literature. The teachers’ task in this
case is to understand the features and the necessities of their students in
order to choose the most appropriate approach. The teaching of writing skill
has evolved over time, adapting to students’ needs. Dragomir and Niculescu
(2020) refer to different approaches such as product-based approach,
process-based approach, the controlled-to-free approach, the free writing
approach, the communicative approach, and the eclectic approach.
The purpose of the product-based approach is to create a final
product (Selvaraj and Aziz, 2019). In this approach, students imitate a
sample text provided by their teacher so as to reproduce the same structure.
To implement this approach, we devote time to read and analyse the sample
text and its structure. One of the main features of this approach is that
students engage controlled practices to drill or exercise the elements of the
sample text. Then, they imitate the sample by organising the ideas obtained
in the previous practice activities.
Despite being efficient, the approach does not focus on the process of
writing, since it gives more importance to grammar and syntax of the
language. As a result of the application of this approach, students often feel
unmotivated when focusing on the form correction rather than content, which
can hinder their creativity.
The process-based approach visualises writing as a process with
different stages: planning, writing, revision, and edition (Selvaraj and Aziz,
2019). Planning is considered a pre-writing stage designed to stimulate
ideas (Reimer, 2001). Some of the techniques for idea stimulation include
reading, brainstorming, grouping, debate, or free writing. However, these
ideas must be structured and organised, enabling the spontaneity and
creativity of the students. During the writing stage, students will produce their
first draft, which should be revised and edited to reach the final and definitive
version. In this stage, students exchange their writings with other people (the
teacher or other classmates), which gives them the opportunity to focus on
their audience and receive comments from their counterparts that will
facilitate the process of revising and re-editing the text. In the revision stage,
students can add, eliminate, reorder or even replace words to make
communication more effective. In this sense, students will evaluate their own
learning with the purpose of improving and being conscious of the process
itself in order to carry out their writings.
Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) supported that it reflects the evolution of
writing instruction by emphasising the importance of receiving comments on
6 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
drafts and integrating students in peer reviews. Teachers adopt a new role
as readers, providing feedback on how to improve students’ writing. It is
within this approach that the concept of scaffolding arises, as this allows
students to improve their writing skills and to foster their creativity by
applying the necessary aids.
Regarding the controlled-to-free approach, we should look back to the
1950s when the audiolingual method arose in FL teaching. This behaviourist
method consists of repeating patterns and drills, focusing on the oral
production and pronunciation. According to Dragomir and Niculescu (2020),
the close relationship with this method is due to comes from the repetitive
structure of the behaviourism. It is a sequential approach to writing that
involves copying, manipulating, and modifying texts.
To start, students practise with words and sentences to, consequently,
work with paragraphs and other more complex compositions. This approach
primarily focuses on grammar, syntax, and the mechanical aspects of
writing; therefore, it pays attention to precision. Creativity plays a secondary
role since the main purpose is only to imitate, shape, and adapt a text to a
given sample.
The free writing approach is based on the principle that any topic can
generate numerous texts that must flow freely and with a minimum of error
correction. In this approach, students generate plenty of ideas for the
construction of numerous texts. Error correction is gradual and feedback is
frequently provided on students’ ideas.
The grammar-syntax organisation approach adds some elements to
the process of writing apart from grammar, that is, syntax and organisation.
The development of this approach is structured around writing tasks
requiring students to pay attention to organisation and grammatical
precision. Apart from using appropriate vocabulary, students have to be
conscious of the verb structure, tenses, linking words, and phrases to build a
coherent and cohesive paragraph. The elements in this approach must be
reviewed prior to the production of the text. Its main feature is the link
between the purpose for which we write and the linguistic instruments
necessary to transmit the message to the reader.
The communicative approach associates two essential elements in
the production of texts: the purpose of the writer and the target audience
(Dragomir and Niculescu, 2020). This method provides realistic tasks
motivating students to act as writers in real contexts in order to answer
questions that will guide their writing process and to choose the most
appropriate language to communicate their message: Why am I writing this?
(purpose), who will read it? (audience). Thus, the target audience is
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 7
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
expanded beyond just the teacher, who traditionally was the only potential
reader and who, on the other hand, read with corrective purposes.
Finally, the eclectic approach is a method customised by every
teacher, who employs different techniques from various approaches that are
most convenient and efficient for a given group of students.
1.2 Procedures and activities for teaching writing in the EFL classroom
Students should be trained in order to develop different linguistic sub-
competencies including the production of coherent writing. According to
Alibayevich (2021), the teaching of this process requires a systematic
approach to motivate students and to make them conscious of the
necessary steps for an efficient writing. This process is gradually structured:
first, by writing paragraphs focused on an idea, and then progressing to
more complex productions by adding coherent paragraphs and developing
arguments to enhance critical abilities. Dragomir and Niculescu (2020) list
the following steps for teaching writing:
a) Provide a sample text.
b) Analyse the sample text with students following a specific
approach and considering its communicative aspects:
meaning, form, purpose, audience, and language.
c) Practise the sample with tasks to consolidate the form and the
language.
d) Produce a response to a new task to customise the content
and the form of the new written production.
This structure corresponds to a product-based approach. Mateo-
Cutillas (2016) presents a series of stages proposed by Pincas et al. (1982)
to improve students’ written communicative ability, which gradually reduces
the teacher’s control:
a) Familiarisation: students are prepared for real writing by
demonstrating the abilities they will use. The main activities in
this stage are identification, evaluation, gap filling,
crosswords, anagrams, or grammatical exercises.
b) Controlled writing: errors are minimised. The main activities
involve combination and substitution, such as matching
phrases with images.
c) Guided writing: it includes activities that fall between
controlled writing and free writing. The activities offer a model
sample, schema or image students can expand upon.
Examples of these activities are finalisation, reproduction,
8 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
comprehension and transformation, such as creating story
maps or writing a final ending to a given story.
d) Free writing (or creative writing): students write freely about
what they have been taught, without any kind of help or
detailed schema.
Regarding the last stage, i.e. creative writing, Couto-Cantero and
Bobadilla-Pérez (2018) highlight its advantages for students, noting that it
not only enhances linguistic and literary skills, but also fosters critical
thinking. They also argue that creative activities like storytelling offer a
dynamic alternative to traditional methods, making language learning more
engaging and effective. Moreover, it has been argued that it is essential for
educators to foster skills such as creativity, communication, collaboration,
and critical thinking, as they are vital for 21st-century learners and thus
should be integrated into teaching practices (Fraga Castrillón and Couto-
Cantero, 2021). Creative writing, by its nature, supports the development of
these competencies, as it helps students not only to express themselves
creatively, but also to engage in collaborative and communicative learning
experiences.
1.3 Scaffolding techniques for teaching writing
The term scaffolding was first coined by Wood, Bruner and Ross in
the 70s (1976) as a form to understand the variety of techniques to help
students with the challenges they face in their learning process (Quintana,
2021). Pea (2004) describes scaffolding as a set of teaching strategies
designed to help students achieve a deeper understanding and greater
independence. According to Kamil (2017), scaffolding in the educative
context describes a temporary interactive and collaborative system of
support that teachers offer to their students. This system is built together and
is removed when the student does not need it anymore.
Despite being used in every field of learning, Wood et al. (1976)
introduced the term to describe the support provided in complex problem-
solving activities. In this context, the term of Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) of Vygotsky arises, referring to the distance between the real level of
the student’s independent development and the potential development
achievable with the help of an adult or more competent classmates
(Herwanis et al., 2021). In other words, it is about what a student can do with
and without help. With this theory in mind, the main objective is to help
students to become conscious of their own learning.
Scaffolding does not simply mean the teacher’s help, but refers to a
specific and prompt support that strengthens students’ learning in order to
complete an activity with a certain level of difficulty. Walqui (2006)
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 9
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
demonstrated in a study that students have greater success in learning a
language when teachers and classmates provide specific support when
necessary. Peñate Cabrera and Bazo (2002) suggested providing a model
on which students can base their texts.
According to Gonulal and Loewen (2018), scaffolding could be applied
in diverse modes with different techniques: modelling, contextualisation,
schema building, text representation, and metacognition development.
Modelling provides students with representative examples of what they are
expected to achieve in the task with some concrete guidelines. In this
technique, teachers, apart from providing task examples, can model the
language and vocabulary that their students need to complete their tasks.
Following this technique, Gonulal and Loewen (2018) argue that teachers
must focus on their students’ previous knowledge by establishing
connections between this and the new knowledge to be learned. The use of
images, facial expressions, gestures, or flashcards is very frequent.
In the schema building, teachers help their students to connect the
new information with the already existing knowledge. To carry out this
technique, reading is frequently used as a source of inspiration with mind
maps and brainstorming. Likewise, the students’ schemas can be activated
so as to integrate the new information with the existing knowledge helping
students generate new ideas. These techniques contribute to the
development of self-autonomy and metacognition. Some examples of
activities are think-aloud reflection and self-assessment activities. As FL
learning entails added difficulty, teachers are expected to provide support to
help students develop their abilities.
Herwanis et al. (2021) state that there exists a close relationship
between the application of scaffolding strategies and the development of
students’ autonomy, as the help provided approaches students to a
competency state that will eventually allow them to carry out the task by
themselves. The study performed by Baradaran and Sarfarazi (2011)
revealed the difference between the results of the written productions of
students that experienced scaffolding and those who did not. They
concluded that there were significant improvements in those productions
carried out with scaffolding help. The study by Veerappan et al. (2011)
determined that, through scaffolding, students could progress from the zone
of current development to the zone of proximal development, and also
demonstrated the positive effect of scaffolding on students with a lower FL
domain. All these studies coincided in the relationship between scaffolding
and the development of learners’ autonomy.
10 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Writing is a complex cognitive process that involves three other sub-
processes: planning, writing, and revision (Caldera, 2003). Each of these
sub-processes requires different scaffolding techniques. In the planning
stage of the message, students must consider the purpose of their writing to
determine the audience, the language that will be used, and the content of
the text (Caldera, 2003). Consequently, students will generate ideas and
organise them. Students will be able to carry out these processes when the
teacher provides appropriate support (Kamil, 2017; Price and Harkins,
2011):
a) Bridges or connections: it seeks to activate students’ previous
knowledge in order to generate some ideas. Students will
establish links between their experiences and the new
information. The most frequently employed techniques in this
stage are brainstorming, lists or the use of visual information
like graphics or images.
b) Contextualisation: it approaches the complex ideas of the
topic to the students’ experience, and likewise connects the
daily language with an appropriate academic language.
Teachers help their students to simplify the sentences to
avoid the excessive use of subordinate clauses, which makes
the process of writing difficult.
c) Visual help like mimes, facial expressions, gestures or images
to provide redundancy in messages.
d) Organisation of their ideas following a logic and coherent
order: this will facilitate the writing of the text and,
subsequently, the organisation of the ideas in paragraphs.
The most used techniques are mind maps, schemas, and
ideograms.
e) Expand ideas: the main aim is to argue the ideas, connect two
ideas and express them with their own words. This is used by
the teacher to provide examples of connectors and even to
employ the technique of brainstorming.
In the writing stage, students proceed to express their ideas in paper-
based manuscripts. Different cognitive abilities are involved: using correct
language and syntax or selecting the appropriate vocabulary. Kamil (2017)
and Price and Harkins (2011) provide the following:
a) Paragraph structure: the teacher provides help and
explanations of the structure of the text. A sample text is
employed to help students to observe the structure they must
follow.
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 11
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
b) Modelling: the teacher models the learning by providing
situations or examples about what students should do. An
analysis and discussion of the sample text are carried out.
The main objective is to develop the content comprehension
and adapt it for personal use.
Lastly, the scaffolding techniques in the revision stage refer to
verifying the comprehension of the students’ knowledge:
a) Feedback around the quality of the content, depth and ideas
precision, organisation or error correction. The teacher
provides suggestions for improvement. This technique
involves the use of correction codes allowing students to
become aware of and correct the mistakes by themselves.
Some teachers prefer to correct the errors in the productions,
although this can cause some negative feeling about the
errors. Another technique is the organisation of peer review, in
which students read and assess their classmates’ productions
with comments and following criteria established by the
teacher.
b) Reflection: this will enable students to develop autonomy in
their learning, being conscious of the steps and techniques
necessary for the production of texts so that they can carry
them out by themselves.
2. TRANSLATION TO TEACH WRITING
Learning strategies are the steps performed by students for the
improvement of their own learning process, making it more effective and
transferable to new situations (Oxford, 1990 cited in Liashuk, 2019). One
such strategy is pedagogical translation, which refers to the use of
translation as a tool in the classroom aimed at enhancing language skills
(Asquerino Egoscozábal and Estrada Chichón, 2024). This approach is used
within language teaching contexts to advance students’ language proficiency
(Hurtado Albir, 2001). Moreover, it goes beyond the mere translation of
literary texts without a clear educational purpose and does not aim to train
students to become professional translators (Asquerino Egoscozábal and
Estrada Chichón, 2024). As Soto Almela (2016) suggested, using
pedagogical translation in second language classes is advantageous,
particularly for developing skills such as reading comprehension, writing,
speaking, flexibility, intuition, and creativity in both interpretation and
expression.
Oxford (1990, cited in Liashuk, 2019) developed a taxonomy of
learning strategies and situates translation within cognitive strategies of
12 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
analysis and reasoning. According to Liashuk (2019), in the process of
writing, the translation can be seen as a form of compensation strategy to
overcome limitations when writing, that is, collecting information in the MT
and its translation to carry out the task of writing. Nevertheless, translation
could also be seen as:
1) A metacognitive strategy for evaluating their learning
(verification of message comprehension).
2) An affective strategy in order to reduce anxiety and enhance
motivation in the process of learning.
3) A social strategy to cooperate with others (asking for or
providing translation to facilitate the performance of a task).
Ghobain (2015) indicates that the use of translation in FL teaching has
received much controversy throughout the history, as educators have
opposed it to prevent the acquisition of the FL from losing strength. The use
of translation as an activity in the FL classroom was drastically reduced with
the implementation of communicative approaches. Despite this, many
teachers continue employing translation as a resource in their lessons.
Numerous studies have defended the use of translation and the MT
as a productive activity that can improve the process of teaching and
learning. Ghobain (2015) also states that the use of the MT and code-
switching can help in promoting a more natural acquisition and, besides,
confirm that the MT facilitates the process of learning a FL.
Translation is, therefore, seen as another scaffolding technique and is
usually a choice made by the teacher. Liashuk (2019) pointed out some
uses attributed to translation in this process:
a) Facilitate FL knowledge: explain new vocabulary and
grammatical questions, solve doubts, etc.
b) Increase contrastive characteristics among the languages,
solving interference errors.
c) Facilitate the orientation of a task: explain activities, give
instructions, etc.
Kulusakli et al. (2018) warn that translation is a teaching tool
employed by teachers that follow the grammar-translation method, in which
the language of instruction is the students’ MT. Mollaei et al. (2017) justify
that translation produces benefits in the FL learning when teaching complex
grammar structures.
Contrary to the grammar-translation method, we find the
communicative approach. Kulusakli et al. (2018) mention that thinking in a
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 13
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
FL improves students’ competences and attributes a secondary role to the
use of translation. Kerr (2016) highlights that the main drawback of the use
of translation is the linguistic interference problems since it promotes the
wrong belief that there exists an equivalence between different languages
when transferring word for word.
However, although the use of the FL promotes improvement when
practising all the linguistic skills, the truth is that the use of the students’ MT
is not neglected anymore (Kerr, 2016) and it coexists with the FL in the
teaching practice. Although scaffolding and pedagogical translation are
distinct strategies, translation can also function as a scaffolding technique.
As Gultekin (2021) argued, translation has become more accepted as a
scaffolding tool, as it provides temporary support that helps learners bridge
gaps in understanding the second language, thereby improving their
language skills. Although scaffolding includes a range of techniques to
support learning, as seen above, pedagogical translation specifically uses
the first language to facilitate comprehension and acquisition of the second
language. Gultekin (2021) even indicated that “the L1 and L2 connection is a
natural fact of language learning; thus, it cannot be totally removed from the
language classroom” (p. 4). Therefore, when used appropriately as a form of
scaffolding, translation can play an important role in supporting FL learning.
In light of the theoretical premises exposed above, to our knowledge,
no studies have been found concerning the study of EFL teachers from
Primary Education regarding the use of translation or other scaffolding
strategies for the practice of writing skill.
3. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY
The main aim of this research was to determine the techniques and
strategies employed by the EFL Primary Education teachers for teaching
writing. With this purpose in mind, some research questions (RQs) were also
posed:
RQ1: Which language/s do the EFL teachers employ in class?
RQ2: What are the in-service EFL teachers’ perceptions of the
teaching of the writing skill?
RQ3: Do in-service EFL teachers of Primary Education use translation
into their students’ MT to facilitate the process of writing? What are their
perceptions?
RQ4: What scaffolding techniques do in-service EFL teachers employ
in Primary Education?
14 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
RQ5: How often do EFL teachers apply metacognitive strategies in
the final revision of the product?
RQ6: What kind of activities and digital tools do in-service EFL
teachers in Primary Education propose for the writing practice in class?
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Participants
A total of 47 in-service EFL teachers from Primary Education
participated in the survey administered online (n = 47). Most of them were
women (n = 42; 89.4%). The participants’ age ranged from 24 to 57 years
old (mean age = 36.06; standard deviation, SD = 7.341). All of them were
Spanish, and they lived mostly in Andalusia, although participants from other
nine regional communities also answered (see Table 1):
Regional community
n
%
Andalusia
30
63.8
Aragón
2
4.3
Canarias
1
2.1
Castilla y León
1
2.1
Cataluña
3
6.4
Comunidad de Madrid
2
4.3
Comunidad Valenciana
4
8.5
Extremadura
1
2.1
Galicia
1
2.1
Región de Murcia
2
4.3
TOTAL
47
100
Table 1. Regional communites of the respondents.
Source. Elaborated by the authors
Many respondents worked in a public centre (n = 39; 83%), and very
few in charter (n = 5; 10.6%) and private schools (n = 3; 6.4%). The most
frequent answer regarding the zone in which the centre is located was
urban, that is, more than 2,500 inhabitants (n = 43; 91.5%), in contrast to
rural or less than 2,500 inhabitants (n = 4; 8.5%). A little less than half of the
sample worked in a bilingual school (n = 20; 42.6%). The mean of number of
years of teaching experience of the respondents was 9.17 (SD = 6.807),
being the minimum less than a year and the maximum 28.
4.2 Instrument
The main instrument was a semi-structured survey. Apart from
gathering socio-demographic information about the participants, as
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 15
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
described above, some other categories with more questions were
proposed:
Category 1: The teaching of EFL and the process of writing.
Category 2: Use of translation as an aid to writing skill.
Category 3: Scaffolding techniques in the practice of written
productions.
Category 4: Metacognitive strategies in the revision of the product.
Category 5: Activities and digital resources for writing practice.
See Appendix A for the complete instrument with the questions of
every category.
4.3 Procedure
The methodology employed in the study included quantitative
analysis, as the survey included closed questions (Cresswell, 2009).
The survey was analysed and tested by five experts in the field: three
academic researchers in the context of foreign language teaching, and two
EFL teachers from Primary Education. Once the experts had provided their
comments and recommendations, the final survey was administered online
through different social networking sites with special attention to contacting
EFL-teacher users: Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. The survey was open
from March to May 2022.
4.4 Data analysis
The quantitative data were managed with the SPSS statistical
package for Windows v.23 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Chicago, IL, USA) and
Microsoft Office Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).
Descriptive statistics included frequencies, means, and standard deviations.
A t-test was conducted with the independent variable of group. The
effect size (d) was also calculated, which quantifies the size of the difference
between the two groups (Coe and Merino, 2003). The level of significance
was set at p < 0.05, which means that values scoring less than 0.05 when
comparing both cohorts’ variables denote a significant difference.
16 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
5. RESULTS
5.1 Results concerning the EFL teaching and the process of writing
(category 1)
The respondents of this study were asked about their use of the target
language (TL, i.e. the EFL) or the mother tongue (MT, i.e. Spanish), in class
(question 1.1.). Most of the in-service teachers reported employing their MT
in order to explain or clarify some doubts. The rest of the reasons did not
show very high percentages, with the number of in-service teachers who
used English exclusively in class being very small. The following table (Table
2) shows the frequency and percentages for the entire sample:
Use of English in class
n
%
English exclusively
3
6.4
English and MT to explain
25
53.2
English and MT to solve doubts
23
48.9
MT to call attention in disruptive behaviour
10
21.3
MT with no specific goal
2
4.3
Table 2. Use of English or Spanish in the EFL class (complete sample of in-
service teachers)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
If we separate the groups, bilingual-school teachers (BI) and non-
bilingual-school teachers (NBI), some differences emerged. The three
respondents who reported using English exclusively were all in BI group,
with no respondents in the NBI group. The highest percentages were
observed in NBI for the statements related to combining the use of the TL
and the MT for explanations and doubts posed in class. However, the
greatest percentage of all the reasons exposed below, BI teachers reported
using the MT together with English to solve some doubts in class.
Table 3 shows the results thrown per group:
Use of English in class
BI
NBI
n
%
n
%
English exclusively
3
6.4
0
0
English and MT to explain
8
17
17
36.2
English and MT to solve doubts
9
19.1
14
29.8
MT to call attention in disruptive behaviour
5
10.6
5
10.6
MT with no specific goal
1
2.1
1
2.1
Table 3. Use of English or Spanish in the EFL class (bilingual and
non-bilingual schools samples)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 17
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Items from 1.2. to 1.8. were measured with a 4-point Likert scale
(“strongly disagree”, SD; “disagree”, D; “agree”, A; and “strongly agree”, SA).
Regarding the use of English in the classroom environment, most of
the teachers employed English for translational purposes (1.3.) and
interactional purposes (1.4.). The percentage of “strongly agree” was greater
for interaction (53.2%) than for transmitting messages (27.7%), with the
highest percentage for the latter found in the “agree” option. The reason for
the lower percentage when transmitting information might be due to the fact
that the teachers believed that their students had difficulties in understanding
messages in EFL (59.6% agreed and 12.8% strongly agreed). Only 27.7%
disagreed with statement 1.2.
As for other aspects concerning the writing skill, in-service teachers
disagreed (55.3%) or strongly disagreed (25.5%) with statement 1.5., which
means that they considered the skill of writing very important. The practice of
writing skill in class is divided into three stages by most of the teachers (1.6.)
(SA = 25.5%; A = 63.8%), and many of them coincided in providing more
exercises to practise the process (SA = 23.4%; A = 61.7%) rather than the
product (SA = 19.1%; A = 48.9%). All the percentages are illustrated in
Figure 1:
Figure 1. Degree of agreement towards aspects concerning the EFL teaching
and the process of writing
Source. Elaborated by the authors
18 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
5.2 Results concerning the use of translation to help in the writing
process (category 2)
Seven items (from 2.1. to 2.7.) were appraised by in-service EFL
teachers regarding their agreement or disagreement with the use of
translation to help students in their writing process.
Even though the translation is quite accepted as a strategy to help
students in the practice of their writing (2.1. and 2.3.), most of the EFL
teachers considered that other strategies were more efficient and positively
adopted rather than the translation itself. We refer to strategies such as
mimes, gestures, visual aids, examples or demonstrations, as well as slower
repetitions (2.4.), obtaining the highest percentage of “strongly agree”.
In contrast, EFL teachers did not consider a convenient practice to
make students repeat a word aloud and translate it subsequently (2.2.). See
Figure 2 to visualise all the percentages for every item:
Figure 2. Use of translation or other techniques to help students in the writing
process
Source. Elaborated by the authors
5.3 Results from scaffolding strategies applied in the writing practice
(category 3)
Apart from translation practices, teachers were inquired about the use
of other scaffolding techniques to help their students in their writing process.
The frequency of ten techniques (from “never” to “always”) was asked under
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 19
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
the umbrella of category 3 (3.1. to 3.10.). The greatest percentage for the
“always” option was found in 3.1., which means that more than half of the in-
service teachers admitted to applying techniques like brainstorming,
providing lists or visual information so that their students could have some
ideas. In the “frequently” option, two statements obtained the same
percentage: in-service teachers helped their students to use their own words
to express their ideas (3.3.) and provided them with different types of texts
(3.8.).
Less frequent were other practices related to scaffolding strategies,
like, for example, helping students to distinguish the purpose of their texts
and the target audience for whom they are writing (3.6.). Suggesting the use
of lexicographic resources (either paper-based or online dictionaries) (3.10.)
was never practised by 29.8% and sometimes by 14.9% of the respondents.
The following figure (Figure 3) illustrates the frequency with which EFL
teachers applied other scaffolding strategies:
Figure 3. Frequency of use of scaffolding strategies for the writing process
Source. Elaborated by the authors
5.4. Results for metacognitive strategies in the revision of the written
product (category 4)
Regarding the correction and revision of the final product (the written
text), in-service teachers declared that they employed some metacognitive
strategies. Statements from 4.1. to 4.7. were measured with another 4-point
Likert scale to observe their frequency of use.
20 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
In-service EFL teachers “frequently” or “always” (48.9% each)
provided feedback to students by suggesting improvements in the final
product (4.7.). Other metacognitive strategies that were “always” or
“frequently” implemented by in-service teachers were the use of rubrics or
checklists in which correction goals are set (4.6.) and making students
reflect upon their own learning with the help of the teacher (4.1.), which is in
line with strategy 4.7.
The least frequent strategies were involving students in the revision of
the final product, such as providing self-assessment templates (4.2.) and
organising peer reviews (4.4.), with more than 50% of respondents who
rejected (“never” or “sometimes” frequencies) these types of strategies (see
Figure 4).
Figure 4. Frequency of use of metacognitive strategies for the revision of the
written product
Source. Elaborated by the authors
5.5 Results for activities and digital resources employed for writing
(category 5)
The most popular activity among in-service teachers in the EFL
classroom for the practice of writing seemed to be 5.1.6., that is, matching
unscrambled phrases with images (an example of controlled writing)
(“always” = 23.4%; “frequently” = 55.3%). Completing texts with words and
connectors is another example of controlled writing activity that gained more
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 21
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
supporters (5.1.7.), but, in this case, respondents declared higher
percentage for “frequently” (57.4%).
The activities of familiarisation, apart from simple exercises of
grammar (5.1.2.) −which is very frequent (61.7%)−, obtained greater
percentages in “never” and “sometimes” options. These are the cases of
gap-filling (5.1.1.), crosswords (5.1.3.), unscrambled letters (5.1.5.), and
anagrams (5.1.4.), with the latter being the least frequent among the
teachers’ practices.
Guided activities, such as writing a final ending to a given story or
providing a story map were not very frequently employed as a writing
practice in class. However, writing a story from a previously viewed pattern
was a very frequent practice activity (“frequently” = 55.3%; “always” = 17%).
Finally, creative writing or free writing was not very frequent (only
21.3% for “frequently” and 8.5% for “always”). This might be due to the fact
that this practice implies a higher command of the foreign language, which
could be attributed to older students (Secondary or Upper-Secondary
Education), rather than younger students from Primary Education. Figure 5
shows all the results concerning the writing activities used by EFL teachers:
Figure 5. Activities employed by EFL teachers in their writing class
Source. Elaborated by the authors
As for the use of digital resources, it is very surprising that tools
devoted to writing stories scored very low in “frequently” option (“always”
22 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
was not marked). We refer to tools like Storybird, Storyjumper,
Mystorymaker (no longer active), and Pixton.
On the contrary, in-service teachers reported having utilised other
more general tools, like Padlet, Canva or Wordwall, which were tools not
conceived particularly for fostering written skills (writing and reading). Other
surprising data were related to the application of other tools, which, although
they are not specifically created for writing, their format allows us to
implement familiarisation activities (Coggle, Bubbl.us, and WordArt). These
tools did not obtain high frequency in the “frequently” or “always” options.
See Figure 6 for detailed percentages regarding the use of resources for the
writing lesson:
Figure 6. Resources employed by EFL teachers in their writing class
Source. Elaborated by the authors
5.6. Results within cohort comparison
A student’s t-test was calculated to compare both cohorts. The test
revealed significant differences in some of the categories studied between
the two cohorts. Variations (with statistically significant differences in both
cohorts) were found in items 1.3., 2.1., 4.3., and 5.2.9 (p > 0.05).
The BI respondents from bilingual centres declared that they
employed English in class for translational purposes (1.3.) more frequently
than the NBI teachers. On the contrary, the NBI teachers obtained a greater
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 23
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
mean in the use of translation to help students in their writing process (2.1.)
than their bilingual counterparts. See Table 4 to visualise all the means in
both categories, in which items with significant differences (1.3. and 2.1.)
have been highlighted with a different colour:
BI NBI t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Category 1
1.2. Students usually have
difficulties in understanding
messages in EFL.
2.80
(0.696)
2.89
(0.577)
-0.465
36.401
0.645
1.3. I use English in class with
translational purposes
(introduce a topic, solve
doubts, explain text structure,
provide feedback, etc.).
3.40
(0.503)
3.00
(0.620)
2.440
44.483
0.019
1.4. I use English in class with
interactional purposes.
3.50
(0.607)
3.48
(0.580)
0.105
40.008
0.917
1.5. Writing is one of the least
important skill when learning
EFL.
1.90
(0.718)
2.00
(0.734)
-0.468
41.578
0.643
1.6. I usually divide the
process of writing in three
stages: pre-
writing, draft
edition, and revision.
3.10
(0.718)
3.15
(0.602)
-0.243
36.645
0.809
1.7. Proposing writing
activities is aimed at
consolidating previous
knowledge of the target
language (as a product).
2.75
(0.851)
2.85
(0.818)
-0.412
40.176
0.682
1.8. Proposing writing
activities is aimed at analysing
the necessary actions to
reach the final product (as a
process: plan the message,
organise ideas, revise, etc.)
3.00
(0.649)
3.15
(0.602)
-0.798
39.262
0.430
Category 2
2.1. I use the translation to
help my students in their
writing process.
2.15
(0.715)
2.74
(0.594)
-2.923
35.385
0.006
2.2. If a student does not
know how to write an idea, I
ask him/her to express it
aloud, and then I translate it.
2.40
(0.883)
2.56
(0.847)
-0.608
40.131
0.547
24 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
2.3. The students frequently
use the translation in the EFL
class.
2.85
(0.745)
3.00
(0.784)
-0.667
42.212
0.508
2.4. Mimes, visual aids,
examples, demonstrations
and slower repetition are
more efficient alternatives
rather than the translation.
3.60
(0.598)
3.52
(0.580)
0.468
40.360
0.642
2.5. Using the MT is efficient
and positive to facilitate
learning, if it is employed with
common sense and in very
few occasions in the EFL
class.
3.30
(0.657)
3.11
(0.847)
0.861
44.878
0.394
2.6. Students usually employ
their MT to confirm the
message comprehension by
reformulating what the
teacher has expressed in
English.
3.10
(0.641)
3.00
(0.832)
0.465
44.908
0.644
2.7. I combine the MT and the
FL (translanguaging) to
facilitate the learning.
2.65
(0.875)
2.89
(0.751)
-0.982
37.280
0.332
Note: t = Student’s t-value; df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = significance
Table 4. Comparison between BI and NBI cohorts (categories 1 and 2)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
The data unveiled no significant differences in any of the items
contained in category 3. However, it is relevant to mention that all the means
of the items in category 3 scored higher in BI teachers when compared to
the means obtained in items from NBI respondents (see Table 5).
BI NBI t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Category 3
3.1. I help my students to
have ideas (brainstorming,
lists, visual information, etc.).
3.50
(0.607)
3.44
(0.641)
0.303
42.260
0.763
3.2. I hep my students to
organise their ideas (mind
maps).
3.45
(0.605)
3.22
(0.847)
1.075
44.960
0.288
3.3. I help my students to
express their ideas with their
own words.
3.45
(0.686)
3.22
(0.641)
1.157
39.430
0.254
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 25
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
3.4. I help my students to
organise their ideas in the text
(paragraphs).
3.40
(0.754)
3.11
(0.892)
1.201
44.139
0.236
3.5. I help my students to
simplify very complex
sentences
(excessive use of
subordinates).
3.40
(0.754)
2.89
(1.121)
1.867
44.661
0.068
3.6. I help my students to
distinguish the purpose and
the target audience of a text.
2.85
(0.745)
2.70
(1.137)
0.532
44.443
0.597
3.7. I help my students in the
revision of their texts.
3.20
(0.768)
2.85
(0.907)
1.422
44.132
0.162
3.8. I provide my students
with different types of written
texts.
3.25
(0.716)
3.11
(0.801)
0.625
43.323
0.535
3.9. I revise and provide
feedback to my students
about their written
productions.
3.60
(0.598)
3.41
(0.694)
1.019
43.887
0.314
3.10. I translate the words or
phrases that the students do
not know.
2.80
(0.834)
2.67
(0.784)
0.556
39.641
0.581
3.11. I provide some
lexicographic resources
(paper-
based or online
dictionaries).
2.80
(1.056)
2.33
(1.271)
1.372
44.339
0.177
Note: t = Student’s t-value; df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = significance
Table 5. Comparison between BI and NBI cohorts (category 3)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
The results of the students’ t-test showed that the BI teachers
provided responses with greater percentages in the use of correction codes
to assess and correct the errors (4.3.) found in their students’ written
productions than the NBI teachers. However, for the rest of the items from
category 4 no statistically significant differences were found between the two
cohorts. Table 6 illustrates all the means for both cohorts in each item of
category 4:
BI
NBI
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Category 4
4.1. I help my students to
reflect upon their own
3.05
(0.826)
2.74
(1.023)
1.146
44.615
0.258
26 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
learning.
4.2. I provide my students
with some self-assessment
templates following some
assessment criteria for written
productions.
2.45
(0.887)
2.30
(0.953)
0.569
42.621
0.572
4.3. I employ correction codes
to evaluate and correct errors.
2.95
(0.887)
2.30
(0.912)
2.458
41.716
0.018
4.4. I organise some peer
review in class.
2.30
(0.923)
2.19
(0.879)
0.430
39.914
0.669
4.5. I correct mistakes directly
in the written production
without using error codes.
2.35
(0.933)
2.56
(0.934)
-0.746
41.105
0.460
4.6. I use checklists or rubrics
to establish the objectives of
the correction.
3.10
(0.968)
2.93
(0.917)
0.623
39.799
0.537
4.7. I suggest improvements
to my students (feedback).
3.50
(0.607)
3.44
(0.506)
0.332
36.543
0.741
Note: t = Student’s t-value; df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = significance
Table 6. Comparison between BI and NBI cohorts (category 4)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
Finally, the only item in category 5 that was significantly different was
the use of Canva, which was more frequent in the BI-teacher responses. For
the rest of the items (both in activities and resources), no statistically
differences were found when comparing both cohorts.
Even though the outcomes are consistent across both cohorts in
category 5, it is observed that in resources (items from 5.2.1. to 5.2.11.) the
BI scored higher than the NBI teachers, except for Coggle (5.2.1.). The
following table (Table 7) shows all the means for the category:
BI NBI t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Category 5 (activities)
Activities
5.1.1 Gap-filling (familiarisation).
2.65
(0.671)
2.37
(0.742)
1.351
43.136
0.184
5.1.2. Simple grammar exercises
(familiarisation).
2.80
(0.768)
2.81
(0.557)
-0.073
33.045
0.942
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 27
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
5.1.3. Crosswords
(familiarisation).
2.60
(0.598)
2.41
(0.888)
0.887
44.670
0.380
5.1.4. Anagrams.
2.15
(0.745)
1.78
(0.974)
1.484
44.932
0.145
5.1.5. Unscrumbled letters
(familiarisation).
2.60
(0.598)
2.30
(1.031)
1.269
42.886
0.211
5.1.6. Match unscrumbled
phrases with images (controlled
writing).
2.90
(0.788)
3.04
(0.759)
-0.599
40.196
0.553
5.1.7. Complete the texts with
words or
connectors (controlled
writing).
2.85
(0.745)
2.67
(0.832)
0.793
43.307
0.432
5.1.8. Write a story from a given
pattern (guided writing).
2.85
(0.671)
2.81
(0.879)
0.156
44.939
0.877
5.1.9. Write a final ending to a
given story (guided writing).
2.25
(0.786)
2.19
(0.879)
0.266
43.318
0.792
5.1.10. Provide a storymap
(guided writing).
2.45
(0.759)
2.15
(0.907)
1.239
44.266
0.222
5.1.11. Creative or free writing.
2.15
(0.933)
2.19
(0.834)
-0.134
38.318
0.894
Resources
5.2.1 Coggle
1.40
(0.754)
1.59
(0.931)
-0.783
44.587
0.438
5.2.2. Bubbl.us
1.20
(0.523)
1.19
(0.557)
0.093
42.448
0.926
5.2.3. Storybird
1.55
(0.605)
1.44
(0.577)
0.603
39.992
0.550
5.2.4. Storyjumper
1.50
(0.761)
1.26
(0.447)
1.263
28.574
0.217
5.2.5. Mystorymaker
1.45
(0.686)
1.26
(0.526)
1.038
34.360
0.307
5.2.6. Pixton
1.65
(0.745)
1.37
(0.629)
1.358
36.860
0.183
5.2.7. Mentimeter
1.55
(0.826)
1.37
(0.629)
0.814
34.239
0.421
5.2.8. Padlet
2.45
(0.826)
2.11
(0.974)
1.288
44.111
0.204
28 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
5.2.9. Canva
3.40
(0.821)
2.81
(1.039)
2.156
44.776
0.037
5.2.10. Wordwall
2.70
(1.081)
2.41
(1.010)
0.943
39.459
0.351
5.2.11. WordArt
2.10
(0.968)
1.78
(0.934)
1.145
40.247
0.259
Note: t = Student’s t-value; df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = significance
Table 7. Comparison between BI and NBI cohorts (category 5)
Source. Elaborated by the authors
6. DISCUSSION
The in-service EFL teachers from Primary Education who participated
in the study do not exclusively use the English language in their lessons, as
observed in the results presented before. They expressed that they
employed their MT to explain or solve some doubts with the intention of
facilitating communication among students. The use of MT might be due to
the linguistic level of students, which, on some occasions, was insufficient
and, besides, EFL teachers agreed that they had some difficulties with
comprehension. Thus, the use of translation in the EFL lessons could
facilitate the acquisition of messages by students, and the process of writing,
according to the respondents’ answers. Hence, the translation is part of
another scaffolding technique employed for the teaching of this skill. Other
significant results include the use of MT to call attention in disruptive
behaviour. Nevertheless, some of the responses highlighted that teachers
usually employed the English language primarily for interactive purposes.
Our study aligns with the investigation carried out by Timor (2012), in
which Israeli’s EFL teachers showed positive attitudes and even highlighted
some benefits towards the use of translation and MT for the EFL teaching.
Concretely, 87% of the participants claimed a tendency towards using the
MT to improve their learning, although they indicated that they mostly
employed the MT to solve and explain the differences between the MT and
the FL but also to teach vocabulary. Likewise, the MT is also favoured in
situations of classroom management such as giving instructions or
addressing discipline problems. These results reflect the necessity of
responding promptly to these types of behaviours following a spontaneity
criterion. Similar results were reported by Kayaoğlu (2012), who observed
numerous pragmatic benefits for both teachers and students regarding the
teaching of grammar and vocabulary in initial stages. These benefits
included comprehension of instructions, explanation of complex processes
or the creation of a classroom environment. Besides, the global perception
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 29
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
of these teachers was that the MT was an auxiliary language for language
lessons although its use varies depending on the students’ linguistic
competences and levels of language, apart from eliminating numerous
barriers of anxiety in language learning. Zairova and Reymova (2020) also
showed that teachers employ the MT to establish comparisons in both
languages.
In contrast to translation, some teachers are in favour of other more
efficient alternatives than the translation itself, such as the mimes, visual
aids, examples, demonstrations and, even, slower repetitions. These
alternatives present an extra task for students because of the necessity to
interpret and interrelate the FL with the gestures or mimes and examples
provided by teachers. The application of these types of visual strategies
introduces beneficial challenges for the development of autonomy, creating
activities for students that make them think and reflect more rather than the
use of translation, which, on the contrary, simplifies all the process.
Nevertheless, students with more difficulties might require the strategy of
translation to facilitate comprehension and learning of the FL. In fact, in the
research carried out by Mostafaei et al. (2019), the authors demonstrated
that visual strategies in the language classrooms are efficient. They
confirmed that the integration of visual means in the teaching better assists
the students with diverse learning styles and preferences, and their progress
in learning and autonomy could enable them to assume a more active role in
their own process of learning.
Regarding the practice of the writing skill, teachers usually incorporate
in the process some scaffolding strategies to simplify and provide help when
learning the skill. Among these strategies, Caldera (2003) classified them
into three sub-groups which coincide with the division of the writing process
in three phases: planning, writing, and revision strategies. Taking into
account this classification, the results of our study revealed that in-service
teachers gave priority to the process (planning) rather than to the product
itself (the written message). Moreover, the most employed strategy was
feedback and the least used was the lexicographic resources. This tendency
is repeated when separating the cohorts, coinciding in both the most and the
least employed strategy, scoring higher, however, in bilingual-school
teachers.
The above outcomes, together with the use of translation as another
scaffolding strategy, align with the responses of teachers who recognised
using translation to facilitate the writing of texts. It is demonstrated that the
process of writing in EFL learning consists of a quite teacher-controlled
teaching, who, normally, does not search for favouring the students’
autonomy, but for producing texts. Therefore, even though teachers pointed
30 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
out that they divided the process of writing into three phases, the necessary
strategies to make students internalise the steps with the purpose of
performing future texts in an autonomous way are not provided. This aspect
has been reflected in the results underscored by the teachers, who indicated
that they rarely help students to distinguish the audience and the purpose of
the text. This aligns with previous research carried out by Padmadewi and
Artini (2019) about the scaffolding strategies applied in the teaching process
of the writing skill with Primary Education students. The authors concluded
that the potential of scaffolding contributes to the improvement of writing
abilities of students, as well as the management of these strategies helps
students to become aware of their own learning, to which the authors refer
as learning to mean. Reimer (2001) also advocated for the inclusion of three
stages (planning, writing, and revision) in the teaching of writing process.
Also, it was noted that all the stages must be modelled and explained to
students to, subsequently, work independently, that is, through scaffolding
strategies that must be removed gradually. Likewise, Ikawati (2020) stated
that the application of scaffolding strategies aims not only to help students
complete the task, but also to allow them to experiment with the required
strategies to produce a text so that students could carry out tasks without
requiring these aid strategies.
Even though the writing skill has not gained the importance it
deserves (Nurdianingsih and Rahmawati, 2018), the present study shows
that the writing skill is as relevant as the rest of linguistic skills. However, it is
true, as indicated in some research, that it is one of the most difficult skills to
teach in a foreign language, because of the necessity to divide the process
into different phases (pre-writing, drafts, and revision) (Ahmed, 2019; Alisha,
Safitri, and Santoso, 2019; Saleh, 2018).
Pincas et al. (1982) classified the most efficient activities to improve
the communicative ability as those that gradually reduce the teachers’
control: familiarisation, controlled writing, guided writing, and free or creative
writing. These activities range from Lower-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) to
Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. In the
present study, EFL teachers have been found to generally apply LOTS
writing activities more frequently, like familiarisation −with the sole exception
of anagrams− and controlled activities, denoting a clear control of the
teacher over the written productions of their students. When comparing the
two cohorts (BI and NBI), the tendency is the same equal as in the entire
sample, scoring lower in the frequency of use whenever students are
supposed to assume the control of their writings (guided and free writings).
The bilingual cohort scored slightly higher, except for free writing, which was
a slightly higher in their non-bilingual counterpart. In conclusion, free writing
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 31
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
is rarely implemented in EFL primary-school classes. These results coincide
with what was confirmed previously, i.e. Primary Education students do not
present a complete linguistic command in EFL, and usually have some
difficulties understanding it, even in bilingual schools. Despite the fact that
Pincas et al. (1982) declared the necessity to introduce all the activities
previously mentioned in the teaching of writing skill, the participants in the
study showed that they generally do not reach (or very rarely reach) the
HOTS activity of writing: free or creative writing. The research of Mateo-
Cutillas (2016) in a primary school in Spain demonstrated the limited
capacity of writing of students, which even worsens by the lack of the use of
EFL as the main communication vehicle for teaching, with the level of
students being very weak, especially in the written form.
Together with the lack of activities enabling students to be more
creative, the absence of technologies in relation to the practice of the skill
has also arisen in the responses. Despite continuous improvements in
emergent technologies in the field of education, the results obtained showed
that EFL teachers in Primary Education do not utilise digital tools as
expected. All the educative tools mentioned in the survey were mostly
unknown by the teachers. One educative tool that stood out above was
Canva. Hadi et al. (2021), in their study, demonstrated the benefits of this
digital resource for the practice of the writing skill, such as facilitating the
design of some learning environments centred on the revision of drafts for
teachers. Likewise, the tool offers a great variety of types of texts and
narrative structures and more visual formats such as the case of
infographics. What it is remarkable is the scarce use of tools specifically
designed for the practice of written skills, like Storybird (Arianti, 2018;
Giacomini, 2015), Storyjumper (Yamaç et al., 2020) or Pixton (Aşıkcan,
2023), with digital storytelling activities to improve writing (Castillo-Cuestas
et al., 2021).
CONCLUSIONS
This study delved into the analysis of the strategies and techniques
employed by EFL primary-school teachers in the teaching of the writing skill.
The results led us to conclude that the use of translation and the students’
MT in EFL teaching, in general, and the process of writing, in particular, is
very frequent. This reality influences the linguistic level of students, which
creates a repetitive and never-ending chain in which students do not
understand the information and the teachers resort back to the MT and
translation of sequences to facilitate comprehension. This hinders the
development of students’ self-autonomy in their writing process since, due to
the low level of linguistic competence in the FL, the majority of activities are
32 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
more teacher-controlled. The outcomes of category 1 provided a response to
RQ1 and RQ2 posed at the beginning of the study.
To respond to RQ3 and RQ4, some other categories were proposed,
and the results led us to conclude that translation has been one of the
preferred strategies of EFL primary-school teachers over the use of
lexicographic resources, for example, though the latter can help students to
develop their own method to write a message. However, when analysing the
items of categories 3 and 4, a global tendency to prefer the strategies of
scaffolding, above all, in the bilingual cohort can be appreciated.
Likewise, the most frequently employed metacognitive strategies in
the final product of the in-service teachers aim at suggesting improvements
to their students rather than organising peer review in class (RQ5). Finally,
regarding the activities and digital resources (RQ6), no significant
differences were found in the activities employed by in-service teachers,
although the tendency is towards the use of activities that require less
cognitive effort from students (like familiarisation) in contrast to free writing.
However, some significant differences were found in the use of Canva,
which scored higher in the bilingual cohort, even though it is a general
educational tool, not designed for EFL teaching, in general, and teaching
writing, in particular.
In conclusion, it has been evidenced that in-service teachers employ
different strategies to help their students in their writing; however, it seems
that the use of scaffolding strategies (category 3) was most frequent than
use of translation (category 2).
This study leaves an open door to further analysis of other variables,
such as years of experience or the age of the teachers, to determine
whether these strategies are used or not. The analysis of the age variable
will also allow to verify the digital divide between the digital immigrants,
those who were born before the technology explosion, and the digital natives
(Prensky, 2001) within the cohort conformed of EFL teachers in primary
school education and other educational stages such as Secondary or Higher
Education.
FUNDING
This paper has been carried out under the framework of the
innovation project EN-GAME (PIE22-152, and the resarch projects
Technology to Teach (T2T) (ref. D5-2023_14) and GAMETRAPP (ref.
TED2021-129789B-I00).
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 33
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
REFERENCES
Ahmed, P. H. (2019). Major Writing Challenges Experienced by EFL
Learners in Soran University. Journal of University of Human
Development (JUHD), 5(3), 120-126.
https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v5n3y2019.pp120-126
Alibayevich, R. A. (2021). How to Teach Writing? Galaxy International
Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 9(10), 210-212.
https://internationaljournals.co.in/index.php/giirj/article/view/330
Alisha, F., Safitri, N., & Santoso, I. (2019). Students’ Difficulties in Writing
EFL. PROJECT, 2(1), 20-25.
https://journal.ikipsiliwangi.ac.id/index.php/project/article/view/1659
Arianti, P. E. (2018). Storybird: A Motivational Storytelling Website to
Increase Students’ Ability in Narrative Writing. Journal of English
Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 26-37.
https://journal.umg.ac.id/index.php/jetlal/article/view/2431
Aşıkcan, M. (2023). Using Digital Tools to Improve Vocabulary in Fourth-
Grade Primary School Students. International Journal of
Contemporary Educational Research, 10(3), 801-822.
https://ijcer.net/index.php/pub/article/view/480/329
Asquerino Egoscozábal, L., & Estrada Chichón, J. L. (2024). La traducción
pedagógica en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras: Una revisión
sistemática de los artículos científicos publicados en los últimos cinco
años. Didáctica. Lengua y Literatura, (36), 89-100.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/dill.85612
Baradaran, A., & Sarfarazi, B. (2011). The Impact of Scaffolding on the
Iranian EFL Learners’ English Academic Writing. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 2265-2273.
https://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2011/December-2011/2265-
2273.pdf
Bouroba, N. (2012). Teaching Writing Right: Scaffolding Writing for EFL/ESL
Students. MATESOL Collection.
Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Third and Fourth
Grade Teachers’ Classroom Practices in Writing: A National Survey.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(9), 929-954.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x
34 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Caldera, R. (2003). El enfoque cognitivo de la escritura y sus consecuencias
metodológicas en la escuela. Educere, 6(20), 363-368.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/356/35662002.pdf
Castillo-Cuestas, L., Quinonez-Beltrán, A., Cabrera-Solano, P., Ochoa-
Cueva, C., & González-Torres, P. (2021). Using Digital Storytelling as
a Strategy for Enhancing EFL Writing Skills. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(3), 142-156.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i13.22187
Coe, R., & Merino Soto, C. (2003). Magnitud del efecto: una guía para
investigadores y usuarios. Revista de Psicología de la PUCP, 21(1),
146-177. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.200301.006
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on Compositions:
Teacher and Student Verbal Reports. In B. Kroll. (Ed.), Second
Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 155-177).
Cambridge University Press.
Couto-Cantero, P., & Bobadilla-Pérez, M. (2018). International Literary
Contest. La escritura creativa como recurso para la innovación
docente en el aula de Lengua Extranjera. El Guiniguada. Revista de
Investigaciones y Experiencias en Ciencias de la Educación, 27, 34-
45. https://doi.org/10.20420/elguiniguada.2018.204
Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage publications.
Dragomir, I. A., & Niculescu, B. O. (2020). Different Approaches to
Developing Writing Skills. Land Forces Academy Review, 25(3), 201-
206. https://doi.org/10.2478/raft-2020-0024
Fraga Castrillón, N., & Couto-Cantero, P. (2021). Aprendizaje de lenguas
extranjeras: Estudio sobre las percepciones del futuro profesorado en
Educación Primaria. DIGILEC: Revista Internacional de Lenguas y
Culturas, 8, 66-82. https://doi.org/10.17979/digilec.2021.8.0.8632
Ghabool, N., Mariadass, M. E., & Kashef, S. H. (2012). Investigating
Malaysian ESL Students’ Writing Problems on Conventions,
Punctuation, and Language Use at Secondary School Level. Journal
of Studies in Education, 2(3), 130-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v2i3.1892
Ghobain, E. (2015). Translation as a Scaffolding Teaching Strategy in
English-Medium Classrooms. International Journal of Translation,
27(1-2), 1-16.
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 35
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Giacomini, L. (2015). Using Storybird in Young Learners’ Creative Writing
Class. English Teaching Forum, 53(4), 35-37.
https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/etf_53_4_pg3
5-37_508.pdf
Gonulal, T., & Loewen, S. (2018). Scaffolding Technique. In J. I. Liontas
(Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp.
1-5). Wiley Online Library.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0180
Gultekin, L. (2021). The Use of Translation in the Language Classroom to
Scaffold Learning. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature
Studies, 1(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v1i1.6
Hadi, M. S., Izzah, L., & Paulia, Q. (2021). Teaching Writing through Canva
Application. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 9(2), 228-
235. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v9i2.3533
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Herwanis, D., Sarinauli, B., Zakaria, R., & Yusdiana, E. (2021). Scaffolding
EARGD: On Effective Teaching Writing for EFL. International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Studies, 3(1), 80-86.
https://doi.org/10.29103/ijevs.v3i1.3537
Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la
Traductología. Cátedra.
Ikawati, L. (2020). Scaffolding in Teaching Writing. The Educational Journal,
30(1), 48-
58. https://www.syekhnurjati.ac.id/jurnal/index.php/tarbiyah/article/vie
w/6487/pdf_14
Jayanti, A. D. (2019). Students’ Writing Ability on English Descriptive Text at
Grade VIII in SMPN 33 Padang. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic
Journal of English Language and Education, 3(1), 72-94.
https://doi.org/10.29240/ef.v3i01.843
Kamil, R. (2017). Exploring Teacher’s Scaffolding to the Students in
Teaching Writing. Journal of English and Education, 5(2), 187-193.
https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/L-E/article/view/9949
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2012). The Use of Mother Tongue in Foreign Language
Teaching from Teachers’ Practice and Perspective. Pamukkale
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 25-35.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114544
36 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Kerr, P. (2016). Questioning 'English-only' Classrooms: own-Language Use
in ELT. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English
Language Teaching (pp. 513-526). Routledge.
Kroll, B. M. (1984). Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience.
College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 172-185.
https://doi.org/10.2307/358094
Kulusakli, E., Boynukara, E., & Genç, G. (2018). EFL Learners’ Use of
Translation as a Learning Strategy. ELT Research Journal, 7(4), 175-
188. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eltrj/issue/41754/492118
Liashuk, X. (2019). Facets of Translation in Foreign Language Education: a
Tentative Classification of Forms and Uses. Journal of Language and
Cultural Education, 7(3), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2019-
0021
Mateo-Cutillas, N. (2016). Teaching Writing in the Primary School. Revista
de Investigación e Innovación en la clase de Idiomas, 25(1), 45-61.
http://hdl.handle.net/10017/30327
Mollaei, E., Taghinezhad, A., & Sadigui, F. (2017). Teachers and Learners’
Perceptions of Applying Translation as a Method, Strategy or
Technique. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,
5(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.67
Mostafaei Alaei, M., Kardoust, A., & Saeedian, A. (2019). The Role of Visual
Scaffolding in Enhancing Iranian EFL students’ Writing Ability. Issues
in Language Teaching, 8(2), 187-211.
https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.51861.492
Nurdianingsih, F., & Rahmawati, O. I. (2018). Running Dictation as an
Effective Technique on the Teaching Writing Skill. English Language
and Literature International Conference (ELLiC) Proceedings, 2, 27-
131. https://jurnal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/ELLIC/article/view/3503/333
4
Padmadewi, N. N., & Artini, L. P. (2019). Using Scaffolding Strategies in
Teaching Writing for Improving Student Literacy in Primary School.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities
Research,178, 156-160. https://doi.org/10.2991/icoie-18.2019.36
Pak-Taong, P. (2008). Effective Writing: A Guide for Social Sciences
Students. The Chinese University Press.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding
and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 37
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Human Activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
Peñate Cabrera, M., & Bazo, P. (2002). Teaching the Four Skills in the
Primary EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(12).
Pincas, A., Hadfield, G. K., Hadfield, C., Johnson, B., & Allen, K. (1982).
Writing in English 2. Macmillan.
Porte, G. (1996). When Writing Fails: How Academic Context and Past
Learning Experiences Shape Revision. System, 24(1), 107-116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00056-P
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5),
1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Price, E. A., & Harkins, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding Student Writing. Language
and Literacy, 13(1), 14-38. https://doi.org/10.20360/G2C88P
Quintana, C. (2021). Scaffolding inquiry. In R. G. Duncan & C. A. Chinn
(Eds.), International Handbook of Inquiry and Learning (pp. 174-188).
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315685779-12
Reimer, C. N. (2001). Strategies for Teaching Writing to Primary Students
Using the Writing Process. [PhD dissertation]. Biola University.
Rietdijk, S., van Weijen, D., Janssen, T., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam,
G. (2018). Teaching Writing in Primary Education: Classroom
Practice, Time, Teachers’ Beliefs and Skills. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 110(5), 640-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000237
Saleh, I. (2018). Difficulties Faced by Ninth Grade EFL Students when
Practicing Writing Skills: Spelling and Punctuation Marks [Master’s
thesis]. Middle East University.
https://meu.edu.jo/libraryTheses/5adc58afc9a7a_1.pdf
Selvaraj, M., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Systematic Review: Approaches in
Teaching Writing Skill in ESL Classrooms. International Journal of
Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(4),
450-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v8-i4/6564
Soto Almela, J. (2016). La traducción pedagógica en el aula de inglés con
fines específicos: el caso del inglés comercial. Profesorado, 20(2),
156-178. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v20i2.10413
Timor, T. (2012). Use of Mother Tongue in Teaching a Foreign Language.
Language Education in Asia, 3(1), 7-17. https://leia.org/LEiA/LEiA
VOLUMES/Download/LEiA_V3_I1_2012/LEiA_V3I1A02_Timor.pdf
38 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
Veerappan, V., Suan, W. H., & Sulaiman, T. (2011). The Effect of
Scaffolding Technique in Journal Writing among the Second
Language Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
2(4), 934-940. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.934-940
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A
Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem
Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-
100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yamaç, A., Öztürk, E., & Mutlu, N. (2020). Effect of Digital Writing Instruction
with Tablets on Primary School Students’ Writing Performance and
Writing Knowledge. Computers & Education, 157, article 103981 (19
pages). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103981
Zairova, N., & Reymova, A. (2020). Teaching English as a Second Foreign
Language. Academic Research in Educational Sciences, (1), 297-303.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teaching-english-as-a-second-foreign-
language
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 39
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
APENDIX
Category
RQ
Response
type
Scale
Category 1. The teaching of EFL
and the process of writing
1.1. Do you use English as the
unique language in class?
RQ1
Closed
Multiple-
choice
question
1.2. Students usually have difficulties
in understanding messages in EFL.
RQ2
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.3. I use English in class with
translational purposes (introduce a
topic, solve doubts, explain text
structure, provide feedback, etc.)
RQ1
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.4. I use English in class with
interactional purposes
RQ1
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.5. Writing is one of the least
important skill when learning EFL.
RQ2
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.6. I usually divide the process of
writing in three stages: pre-writing,
draft edition and revision.
RQ2
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.7. Proposing writing is aimed at
consolidating previous knowledge of
the target language (as a product).
RQ2
Closed
Likert (1-4)
1.8. Proposing writing activities is
aimed at analysing the necessary
actions to reach the final product (as
a process: plan the message,
organise ideas, revise…)
RQ2
Closed
Likert (1-4)
Category 2. Use of translation as
an aid to writing skill (indicate
your degree of agreement or
disagreement)
2.1. I use translation to help my
students in their writing process.
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
2.2. If a student does not know how
to write an idea, I ask him/her to
express it aloud, and then I translate
it.
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
2.3. The students frequently use the
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
40 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
translation in the EFL class.
2.4. Mimes, visual aids, examples,
demonstrations and slower repetition
are more efficient alternatives rather
than the translation
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
2.5. Using the MT is efficient and
positive to facilitate learning when
employed with common sense and
in very few occasions in the EFL
class.
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
2.6. Students usually employ their
MT to confirm the message
comprehension by reformulating
what the teacher has expressed in
English.
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
2.7. I combine the MT and the FL
(translanguaging) to facilitate the
learning
RQ3
Closed
Likert (1-4)
Category 3. Scaffolding strategies
in the writing practice (indicate
the frequency)
3.1. I help my students to have ideas
(brainstorming, lists, visual
information, etc.).
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.2. I hep my students to organise
their ideas (mind maps).
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.3. I help my students to express
their ideas with their own words.
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.4. I help my students to organise
their ideas in the text (paragraphs).
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.5. I help my students to simplify
very complex sentences (excessive
use of subordinates).
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.6. I help my students to distinguish
the purpose and the target audience
of a text.
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.7. I help my students in the
revision of their texts.
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.8. I provide my students with
different types of written texts.
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
3.9. I revise and provide feedback to
my students about their written
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
Cristina Castillo, Esther Becerra Fuentesal y Anna Szczesniak 41
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
productions.
3.10. I provide some lexicographic
resources (paper-based or online
dictionaries).
RQ4
Closed
Likert (1-4)
Category 4. Metacognitive
strategies in the revision of the
product (indicate the frequency)
4.1. I help my students to reflect
upon their own learning.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.2. I provide my students with some
self-assessment templates following
some assessment criteria for written
productions.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.3. I employ correction codes to
evaluate and correct errors.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.4. I organise some peer review in
class.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.5. I correct mistakes directly in the
written production without using error
codes.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.6. I use checklists or rubrics to
establish the objectives of the
correction.
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
4.7. I suggest improvements to my
students (feedback).
RQ5
Closed
Likert (1-4)
Category 5. Activities and digital
resources (indicate the frequency)
5.1. Activities
5.1.1 Gap-filling (familiarisation).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.2. Simple grammar exercises
(familiarisation).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.3. Crosswords (familiarisation).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.4. Anagrams (familiarisation).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.5. Unscrumbled letters
(familiarisation).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.6. Match unscrumbled phrases
with images (controlled writing).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.7. Complete the texts with words
or connectors (controlled writing).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.8. Write a story from a given
pattern (guided writing).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.9. Write a final ending to a given
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
42 Translation vs. Scaffolding for the Writing Practice: Techniques Employed […]
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 42
story (guided writing).
5.1.10. Provide a storymap (guided
writing).
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.1.11. Creative or free writing.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2. Resources
5.2.1 Coggle.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.2. Bubbl.us.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.3. Storybird.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.4. Storyjumper.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.5. Mystorymaker.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.6. Pixton.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.7. Mentimeter.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.8. Padlet.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.9. Canva.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.10. Wordwall.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
5.2.11. WordArt.
RQ6
Closed
Likert (1-4)
