Technology Mediated Instruction and its Effect on Cognitive Scaffolding, motivation and Academic Performance in EFL Context

Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran


Technology mediated learning brings together the users with shared interests. This method makes learners informally engaged in language learning. This study intended to investigate the effect of technology mediated instruction on cognitive scaffolding, academic performance and motivation. Employing a quasi-experimental research, 80 learners from two intact classes at Islamic Azad University, Osku Branch were selected as the experimental and control groups. Telegram as a tool was used in the experimental group, while the control group received traditional way of instruction. Critical ethnography approach was implemented to consider the amount of cognitive scaffolding. To measure the students’ motivational level in both groups, Course Interest Survey (CIS) was administered at the end of the semester. The total average score for each group was calculated. To compare students’ academic achievement, their average scores in the final academic test were considered. An Independent samples t-test in was used to compare the mean scores. The results indicated that technology mediated learning brought about cognitive scaffolding and the students in the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of motivation and academic achievement. The results of the study suggest that to bring about academically successful students, practitioners should use technology mediated instruction.


Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2000). Computer mediated learning: an example of an approach. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 25-45.
Baatarjav, E., Phithakkitnukoon, S., & Dantu, R. (2008). Group recommendation system for Facebook. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & P. Herrero (Eds.), OTM 2008 Workshops (pp. 211-219), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008. Retrieved from
Brophy, J., & Merrick, M. (1987). Motivating students to learn: An experiment in junior high social studies classes. Paper presented at the annual AERA conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
Clifford, M. (1990) Students need challenge, not easy success. Educational Leadership, 48(1). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2004). Applying activity theory to computer-supported collaborativelearning and work-based activities in corporate settings. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 38-52. Retrieved from
Efklides, A., Kuhl, J., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2001). Trends and Prospects in Motivation Research. Dordrecht; Boston; London: Kluwer Academic.
Engestrome, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsulit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. Gutierrez (Eds), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303-328). Retrieved from
Felder, R. M.,& Brent, R. (1996).Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2). Retrieved August 8, 2015 from Academic Search Premier.
Freeman, D. (1997). Using information technology and new technologies in geography. In Tilbury D., & Williams M. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning Geography (pp. 202–217). London: Routledge.
Gabrielle, D. M. (2003). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance, and self-directed learning. Retrieved August 10, 2015 from 171019/.
Gehring, J. (2003) National Research Council calls for new strategies in high school. Education Week, 23(15). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Golightly, A. (2008). The digital versatile disc as a learning support medium in the teaching and learning of map work, Journal of Geography, 107(4–5), 131–141.
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2004). Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning: 4th ed., New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hancock, D. R., Bray, M., & Nason, S. A. (1995). Influencing university students’ achievement and motivation in a technology course. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
House, J. D. (2003). The motivational effects of specific instructional strategies and computer use for mathematics learning in Japan: Findings from the third international mathematics and science study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(1). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Houtsonen, L. (2003). Maximizing the use of communication technologies in geographical education. In Gerber, R. (Ed.), International handbook on geographical education (pp. 47–63). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jenlink, P. M. (2008). Conversation as an activity system: The mediational role of discourse in systems design. In P. M. Jenlink & B. H. Banathy (Eds), Dialogue as a collective means of design conversation (pp. 217-234). Springer Science and Business Media. Retrieved from
Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity Theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, D. (2006). Activity theory in a nutshell. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2, 26-34.
Kim, W.,&Jeong, O. (2009).On social e-learning. In M. Spaniol, Q. Li, R. Klamma& R. W. H.Lau (Eds.), ICWL 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5686, 12-24. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from
Kuswara, A., Cram, A., & Richards, D. (2008). Web 2.0 supported collaborative learning activities: Towards an affordance perspective. In L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference 2008: Perspectives on Learning Design. (pp. 70-80). 5th December 2008, Sydney: LAMS Foundation. Retrieved from
Kuutti , K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lashaway-Bokina, N. (2000) Recognizing and nurturing intrinsic motivation: A cautionary tale. Roeper Review, 22(4). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2004). An activity -theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy. Computers and Education, 43, 215-236.
McLoughlin, C. (1999). Scaffolding: Applications to learning in technology supported environments. In ED-MEDIA 99 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications. Proceedings (11th, Seattle, Washington, June 19-24).
Nardi, B. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Nardi, B. (1998). Activity theory, a foundation for designing learning technology.  The Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(2), 241-255.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2000). Using situated learning as a design strategy for Web-based learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 178-191). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3). Retrieved August 10, 2015 from Academic Search Premier.
Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 295-314. Retrieved from
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Ed.). (1984). Everyday cognition: its development in a social context. Cambridge, Mass, & London: Harvard University Press.
Russell, D. (2002). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and destributed learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
Russell, D., &Shneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in Education using Activity Theory. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 38-53.
Sanacore, J. (1997). Promoting lifetime literacy through authentic self-expression and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(7), 568-71.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (1999) The ARCS model for developing motivationally-adaptive computer-assisted instruction. ERIC document. Retrieved from
Tavani, C., & Losh, S. (2003). Motivation, self-confidence, and expectations as predictors of the academic performances among our high school students. Child Study Journal, 33(3). Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In K. van Esch & O. St. John (Eds), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 51-70). Frankfurt: Lang.
Van der Schee, J. A. (2003). New media will accelerate the renewal of Geographic education. In Gerber, R. (Ed.) International handbook on geographical education, 205–213.London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, S., & Yang, C. (2002). An investigation of a web-based learning environment designed to enhance the motivation and achievement of students in learning difficult mental models in high school science. Retrieved from
Wilson, L., & Corpus, D. (2005). The effects of reward systems on academic performance. Middle School Journal Research Articles. Retrieved from
Yin. R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.