SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sınırsız Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Bridging the Gap: e-CIC, Mediation and Scaffolding

Figen Yılmaz(KTO KARATAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6063-8140
Gulden Tum(CUKUROVA UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7790-0857
Pages
550–585
Publication Date
2026-07-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additionally, the findings highlighted that data-driven scaffolding themes significantly enhanced classroom interaction in terms of students' e-CIC, though these features varied across different learner profiles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As a crucial 21st-century skill for EFL learners, mediation fosters learner autonomy and lifelong education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Designed as a case study, this study investigated how six higher education EFL learners applied mediation strategies and scaffolding features to develop their e-Classroom Interactional Competence (e-CIC).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, the findings highlighted that data-driven scaffolding themes significantly enhanced classroom interaction in terms of students' e-CIC, though these features varied across different learner profiles.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:e-CIC · Mediation · Mediation strategies

Abstract

As a crucial 21st-century skill for EFL learners, mediation fosters learner autonomy and lifelong education. In foreign language classrooms, mediation and scaffolding are primarily developed through real-time communication. Designed as a case study, this study investigated how six higher education EFL learners applied mediation strategies and scaffolding features to develop their e-Classroom Interactional Competence (e-CIC). The research was conducted during assessments designed around the CEFR mediation and interaction activities in Synchronous Online Lessons (SOLs). The results revealed that high-achieving participants effectively varied their mediation strategies. In contrast, average and low-achieving learners relied on limited, individual strategies rather than group-oriented approaches. Additionally, the findings highlighted that data-driven scaffolding themes significantly enhanced classroom interaction in terms of students' e-CIC, though these features varied across different learner profiles.

Özet

As a crucial 21st-century skill for EFL learners, mediation fosters learner autonomy and lifelong education. In foreign language classrooms, mediation and scaffolding are primarily developed through real-time communication. Designed as a case study, this study investigated how six higher education EFL learners applied mediation strategies and scaffolding features to develop their e-Classroom Interactional Competence (e-CIC). The research was conducted during assessments designed around the CEFR mediation and interaction activities in Synchronous Online Lessons (SOLs). The results revealed that high-achieving participants effectively varied their mediation strategies. In contrast, average and low-achieving learners relied on limited, individual strategies rather than group-oriented approaches. Additionally, the findings highlighted that data-driven scaffolding themes significantly enhanced classroom interaction in terms of students' e-CIC, though these features varied across different learner profiles.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, F., Tum, G. (2026). Bridging the Gap: e-CIC, Mediation and Scaffolding. Sınırsız Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 550–585. https://doi.org/10.29250/sead.1870171

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Alrasheedi, S. (2020). Investigation of factors influencing speaking performance of Saudi EFL learners. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 11(4), 66-77. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3764220
  2. Asril, Z. (2010). Micro Teaching. Raja Grafindo Persada.
  3. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
  4. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
  5. Cheung, A. (2021). Synchronous online teaching, a blessing or a curse? Insights from EFL primary students’ interaction during online English lessons. System, 100, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102566
  6. Chiappini, R. (2020, August 19). Mediation Tasks for Young Learners. Mac Millan Education. https://www.macmillanenglish.com.tr/blog-resources/articles/advancing-learning- mediation-tasks-for-young-learners
  7. Chou, M. (2018). Speaking anxiety and strategy use for learning English as a foreign language in full and partial English medium instruction contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 493-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.455
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  9. Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435–436. https://www.proquest.com/openview/44ffecf38cc6b67451f32f6f96a40c78/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=30764
  10. Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages - Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors
  11. Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  12. Dendrinos, B. (2006). Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing. JALL, 22, 9–35. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/121425808/MEDIATION_IN_COMMUNICATION_LANGUAGE_TEAC-libre.pdf?1739903027=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DMEDIATION_IN_COMMUNICATION_LANGUAGE_TEAC.pdf&Expires=1784105939&Signature=De1buHFrMo8577sdtv~NPkBwUxrD39GhCc7pMr2lm0n07PxVr-NQWMoNi2C~4YO7OSPdQXZ5-TyU0ukRLiW1ruDL2KPkwHZ5mE~ZxgXwTzG98rwvLzCTwechUMCVyJeLa8ot0kw5H3mKFZzXtZ2GkilpLmAB6PCBaKraQ~~Es-oqf9KiDLXU9PmKtQepSP5wl2d4dbdHe9axyWi1R6Ig1uMrX97BhwuOydYjBCjwCt1zd5dQiRydC8o1dYVAjccHkWeMubs63vnheVHx4ScKF~J8LpysNt0nF7q0yElU4-o1sZj9cP2OsJMCGqbxNfZMf6PirkbtSJpRisPV1So2-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
  13. Donato. R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33-56). Ablex.
  14. Dwyer, E., & Heller-Murphy, A. (1996). Japanese learners in speaking classes. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 7, 46-55. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED395511
  15. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
  16. Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  17. Harsch, C., Müller-Karabil, A. & Buchminskaia, E. (2021). Addressing the challenges of interaction in online language courses. System, 103, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102673
  18. Karanfil, B. & İlbay Uysal, Ö. (2023). Conversation analytic study on scaffolding strategies applied in an online English Ccass. IJARE, 9(1), 1–13. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijare/article/1365101
  19. Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, scaffolding and basic speech development in EFL context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98,891-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.497
  20. Knahmadi, F. & Sarkhos, M. (2018). Teacher vs. peer-mediated learning of grammar through dynamic assessment: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 207–222. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191713
  21. Kramsch, C. (1986). From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.2307/326815 https://www.jstor.org/stable/326815
  22. Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
  23. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. van Patten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.201–224). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  25. Littlewood, W., & William, L. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Lomicka, L. (2020). Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12456
  27. Lomicka, L., Arnett, D., & Yang, F. (2026). The effect of virtual peer-led learning and students’ academic performance in a STEM course at a research university. Cogent Education, 13(1), 2641877. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2026.2641877
  28. Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187-212. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/49768/
  29. Maldina, E. (2015). The impact of the Common European Framework on foreign language instruction: The case of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. [Master’s thesis]. School of Graduates.
  30. Mamo, B. & Yigzaw, A. (2015). Fidelity of peer mediation and its role in improving students’ oral English communication skills. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(1), 203-214. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/star.v4i1.33
  31. Many, J. E., Dewberry, D., Taylor, D. L., &Coady, K. (2009).Profiles of three pre service ESOL teachers' development of instructional scaffolding. Reading Psychology, 30(2), 148-174. http://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802275256
  32. Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Josey Bass, USA.
  33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Sage.
  34. Moorhouse, B., Luke, L. Y. & Walsh, S. (2021). E – Classroom Interactional Competencies: Mediating and assisting language learning during Synchronous Online Lessons. RELC Journal, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985274
  35. Nooralieen, İ., Shak, M. S. Y., Mohd, T., Ismail, N., Perumai, P. D., Zaidi & Yasin, S., M. A. (2015). The importance of implementing collaborative learning in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01208-3
  36. Pavelkova, M. (2018). Student questions as significant potential for student learning. New trends and issues. Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Online], 5(3), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v5i3.3914
  37. Peachey, N. (2017). Synchronous online teaching. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory and practice (pp. 143–155). Taylor & Francis.
  38. Pavloskaya, I. Y. & Lankina O. Y. (2019). How new CEFR mediation descriptors can help to assess the discussion skills of management students – Global and analytical scales. CEFR Journal, 33–40. Retrieved from http://academia.edu.tr
  39. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied linguistics, 8(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/8.1.3
  40. Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speaking classes? An action research at tertiary Level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2682–2686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.635
  41. Shamir, A., Tzuriel, D., & Guy, R. (2007). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive Effects of a Peer Mediation Intervention. Journal of Cognitive Education & Psychology, 7(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.1891/194589507787382052
  42. Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2015). Interface between L2 learners’ pragmatic performance, language proficiency, and individual/group ZPD. Applied Research on English Langauge, 4(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2015.15495
  43. Temir, T. & Ergül, H. (2022). The role of scaffolding in L2 learners’ dialogic reflections of their spoken performances. BUEFAD, 11(3), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.954650
  44. Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674.008
  45. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Kluwer Academic Press.
  46. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Routledge.
  47. Walsh, S. (2010). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through self-evaluation. [Doctor of Philosophy]. Queen’s University.
  48. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse language in action. Routledge.
  49. Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL. 6, 1–14. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/111826
  50. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (2), 159-180 https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
  51. White, C. (2014). The distance learning of foreign languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 47(4), 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000196
  52. Whiteside, A. L., Dikkers, A. G., & Swan, K. (Eds.). (2017). Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research (1st ed.). Stylus Publishing.
  53. Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge University Press
  54. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 8–19.
  55. Yin, Robert. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Sage Publications, London.
  56. Zhang, D. & Goh, C. C. M. (2009). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use. Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.2167/la342.0
  57. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Sage.