A Dynamic Application Study of Advance Organizers in Senior High School English Reading Teaching from the Perspective of Scaffolding Theory

Dan Liu

doi:10.63313/EH.9040

Authors

Dan Liu School of Foreign Languages, China West Normal University, Nanchong 637009, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/EH.9040

Keywords:

Scaffolding theory, Advance organizer, Senior high school English reading, Dynamic application, Cognitive modeling

Abstract

This study aims to address the persistent "static" application dilemma of advance organizers in senior high school English reading instruction, which often reduces them to isolated background inputs and fails to support students' deep comprehension and strategic autonomy. Based on Vygotsky's scaffolding theory, and integrating insights from constructivism, second language acquisition, and individual differences theory, a dynamic theoretical reconstruction of the advance organizer is undertaken. Through theoretical analysis and model building, a dynamic application framework is constructed. The research proposes a three-phase dynamic model centered on "diagnostic initiation—interactive transformation—gradual internalization." Corresponding design principles and application logic for senior high school English reading are clarified. This reconstruction endows the advance organizer with procedural and generative vitality. The reconstructed model provides a key theoretical pivot and practical pathway for shifting senior high school English reading teaching from a "knowledge-transmission" paradigm toward a "cognitive-development" para-digm, effectively bridging the gap between strategic design and deep learning needs.

References

[1] Ahuja, M. (2016). Effectiveness of use of advance organisers in the initial instruction for mastery on self-esteem of field dependent and field independent students. Journal of Teacher Education and Research, 11(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.5958/2454-1664.2016.00005.7

[2] Ament, J., & Zhang, M. (2025). Individual differences in English-medium education. AILA Review, 38(2), 160–186. https://doi.org/10.1075/AILA.24047.AME

[3] Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.

[4] Chew, S. L. (2021). An advance organizer for student learning: Choke points and pitfalls in studying.Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 62(4), 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000290

[5] Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

[6] Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

[7] Huang, Y., Li, N., Xiang, S., & These authors contributed equally. (2025). Exploring the predictive factors and sources in English reading anxiety from individual differences, grammar perspectives and vocabulary perspectives for Chinese undergraduates. Exploring Science Academic Conference Series, 7, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.70267/ICLPCE.202506

[8] Jafari, K., & Hashim, F. (2012). The effects of using advance organizers on improving EFL learners' listening comprehension: A mixed method study. System, 40(2), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.04.009

[9] Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278). Newbury House.

[10] Mayer, R. E. (1979). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8(2), 133–167.

[11] Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Merrill.

[12] Snow, C. E. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 306–337). Academic Press.

[13] Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.

[14] Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4

[15] Tao, L. (2025). Implicit vs. explicit learning: Advantages of task-based language teaching (TBLT) as an implicit approach to L2 acquisition. International Educational Research Development, 2(6), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.12462/IERD.ISSN3007-7664.2025.06.019

[16] van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (3rd ed.). Routledge.

[17] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

[18] Wang, L. (2024). Teaching strategies for the new continuation writing task in China's college entrance examination guided by scaffolding theory: A case study of the. Region - Educational Research and Reviews, 6(8). https://doi.org/10.32629/RERR.V6I8.2515

[19] Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.

[20] Wu, X. (2025). Research on the teaching model of college English listening, speaking, and reading in the online environment based on second language acquisition theory. English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.22158/ELTLS.V7N6P176

[21] Xing, Y. (2025). Learner motivation and engagement in generative AI-assisted second language acquisition: A narrative review. Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems, 14(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.54097/VJ288D75

[22] Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2