Feature Article

Building Paragraph Writing Skills
through Scaffolding

Ruth Vanbaelen
University of Tsukuba
Jonathan Harrison
Nihon University, College of Science and Technology
This paper examines how beginner-level ESL learners developed paragraph writing skills
in one fifteen-week semester-long English Communication course. Continuous assessmentof the participants’ Zone of Proximal Development was reflected in adjustments in thescaffolding in spoken and written tasks. The data sample consists of five ten-minutetimed paragraph writings done by a group of 177 ESL undergraduate STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students at a private Japanese university. First,
the theoretical background is introduced, and the sample explained. Next, the analysis of thetimed individual writings (839 in total) focuses on the number of words and the structureused. Finally, the effectiveness of class materials and the teacher feedback is considered inconnection with the course format of 1) in-class paragraph structure instruction and group
writing practice, followed by 2) a repeated two-class format that alternates pair talks andindividual writings. Results indicate that within ten weeks, students became able to write astructured paragraph with an increased length. However, the decline in word count and lessstructured paragraphs observed in the final writing on a more complicated topic suggests theneed for continued scaffolding along with vocabulary building exercises to sustain a positive
learning curve.
本稿は1学期に亘るイングリッシュコミュニケーション科目において、参加者の最近接発達領域を随時に評価し、それらを口頭・筆記タスクに提供するスキャフォールディングに反映しながら、初級学習者が段落の書き方をどのように身につけるかを検討する。まず、理論的背景が紹介され、その次に理工系大学に在籍する177名の学習者による10分間の時間制限付きのライティ
ング（計839例）が語数と段落構造に焦点を当て分析された。最後に、教材

47

Vanbaelen & Harrison
や教員によるフィードバックが授業スタイル（段落の書き方の指導及びグループライティングに続いて、週ごとに交替して行うペアトーク・プレゼンとペアトーク・個人ライティングのフォーマット）の有効性とともに考察された。初級学習者が10週の短期間で段落の書き方を身につけ、時間制限を守りながら構造化された段落を書くことが可能で、語数も徐々に増加すると分析結果から明確となった。しかし、難易度の高いテーマによる最終課題では段落構造が崩れることも観察され、上向きの学習曲線を維持するには継続した
スキャフォールディング及び語彙学習指導が必要だと思われる。

Introduction

When Japanese students enter university, they have already been exposed to aminimum of six years of English language coursework during junior and seniorhigh school. Nevertheless, depending on factors like the secondary schoolingand university entrance requirements, skills can be limited to a beginner or
low-intermediate English level. During the summer of 2014, MEXT (2015)
conducted a survey consisting of a test and questionnaire concerning the English
proficiency of 70,000 Japanese students in their final year of senior high school.
Its goals were to comprehend if a balance is attained between the four skills oflistening, speaking, reading, and writing, and to have high schools in general use
the survey results to improve student guidance and enhance learning. The test
results indicated that for reading and listening, 72.7% and 75.9%, respectively, ofJapanese third-year senior high school students display a proficiency of A1 (i.e.
low basic user) in the CEFR framework (Council of Europe). The A1 percentage
increases to 86.5% and 87% for writing and speaking, respectively, with nearly
44% scoring 0 on the writing task. According to the questionnaire, 38.7% of theparticipants self-reported “to have hardly ever written a summary or their opinion
in English about content they read or heard” (MEXT, 2015, p. 3, translated fromJapanese by the authors). Similarly, 60.3% of teaching staff agreed to have hardly
ever implemented integrated writing activities into their courses.
At the private Japanese university where the current study took place, asemi-required (that is, required for some programs and departments) English
Communication (EC) course was offered to second- through fourth-year
students majoring in STEM fields. One of the EC course output goals was48

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71“Graded written reports totaling a minimum of 200 words”, as stated in theguidelines given to all course teachers. An output goal of 200 words is nothigh. However, through a show of hands in class, students self-reported to have
had little writing experience beyond the sentence level. Therefore, most of theenrolled students can be categorized as false beginners or low-intermediate
English learners in terms of writing skills.
It should be noted that in this four-skill integrated course, writing activities
were limited in time and alternated with other course objectives such ascommunicating in different situations, asking and answering basic questions,summarizing listening and reading exercises, and integrating the information
into spoken or written product.
Two research questions are addressed in the present research. Firstly, howwell do course participants develop the skills to write a structured paragraph inthe span of a 15-lesson course with 90-minute classes which includes one writing
instruction session and 10 in-class activities (under 30-minutes each)? Secondly,
what scaffolding proved helpful in the learning process?
Background literature and study framework
In the 1930’s, Vygotsky (1978) focused on child development and developed
the Sociocultural Theory (SCT). This theory describes learning as a culturally
influenced social activity in collaboration with both peers and teachers.
Development happens on two planes, namely, first on the social level whenchildren learn through interaction, and only later on the individual level whenchildren have appropriated the knowledge received through interaction. SCT
has been applied in L2, for example, by Ohta (1995, 2001, 2005) in relation to L2
learning as a whole and in relation to L2 writing processes in particular by Storch(2007) and Schwieter (2010). Accordingly, the authors draw upon SCT because
the participants of this study learn the process of paragraph writing in interaction
with the course instructor and their peers before moving on to individual writing.
Within SCT, Vygotsky (1978) defined the Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determinedby independent problem solving and the level of potential development as49

Vanbaelen & Harrison

determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers” (p. 86). In the 1980s, recitation and rote learning
were still the norm for most student-teacher interactions in the U.S. (Tharp
and Gallimore, 1989). In Japan, although the government instituted changes to“reduce the teaching of mere knowledge or of rote memorization material” in1996 (IFIC/JICA, p. 39), a recent MEXT report (2016) suggests rote learning
continues to heavily influence education. Tharp and Gallimore (1989) advocatedfor “assisted performance” stating that, “Teaching must be redefined as assisted
performance. Teaching consists of assisting performance. Teaching is occurring
when performance is achieved with assistance” (p. 23).
To make the concept more suitable for the L2 field, especially for adultlearners (such as university students), Ohta (2001) adopted the notion ofassistance while expanding Vygotsky’s definition of the ZPD to “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by individual linguistic
production, and the level of potential development as determined throughlanguage produced collaboratively with a teacher or peer” (p. 9). This definitionis adapted from her earlier study (Ohta, 1995), in which she added that “L2acquisition takes place as the gap between what the learner can do alone andwith assistance is filled through collaboration” (pp. 96-97), emphasizing theneed of interaction. Although she defined interaction as “learner-learnerinteraction” (p. 96), her focus was on “engagement in activities between novice
and expert” (p. 96), which can be read as between student and instructor. Here,part of Vygotsky’s definition concerning guidance “by adults or more capable
peers” lingers. Vygotsky’s definition allows a variety of people to assist the learnerin the ZPD, but instructors, whether they be parents, friends, or teachers, need
to be more knowledgeable, more competent.
However, according to Ohta’s literature review (2005), from the late 1990’s
onward research discusses the usefulness of interaction between peers without
specific requirements of skill or experience. Several of the studies mentioned
in the review indicate that learners improve their performance through peer
collaboration, regardless of the peer's skill level, i.e., more capable peers will
benefit from assisting less competent ones and vice versa. In addition, the50Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

increased performance may have a lasting effect on later individual output.
Storch (2007) similarly suggests that “pair work afforded learners opportunities
to pool their linguistic resources and co-construct knowledge about language”(p. 155). Effective scaffolding reduces variability within the task and minimizes
frustration (Schwieter, 2010). Schwieter also states that error correction insecond language writing does not contribute to development unless there isexpert feedback which allows learners to better understand the error and correct
it in future writings.
Comparably with the suggestions Storch (2007) made about the importanceof peer collaboration, Wertsch (2008, reprint of 1979) is said to have explained“scaffolding as a dialogically produced inter-psychological process throughwhich learners internalize knowledge they co-construct with more capable
peers” (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006, p. 282). Within the approach of scaffolding
as dialogical interaction, the authors of the current paper define scaffolding as
the provision of tools as a form of assistance to enable the learner to perform.
Therefore, the focus is different: the instructor/expert provides the scaffolding
tool and the learner performs with assistance. Scaffolding tools can consist ofclass materials such as handouts and visuals, of similar topics used in speaking
and writing tasks and of teacher feedback. Here we follow Storch (2005) inthat the teacher provides the appropriate level of assistance to bring the learner
beyond their current level towards their potential level of development.
Instructors and peers are instrumental for assisting the learner’s performance.
The analysis in this paper will mainly focus on assistance from the instructor andthe scaffolded tasks that were provided to improve individual performance. The
positive influence peers have on the learning process is, however, not denied,hence the strong emphasis on pair and group activities in class that lead up to
the writing tasks. The measurement of peer assistance would be difficult but not
impossible. It is, however, beyond the scope of this paper and will be consideredin future projects.
Learning in and around the ZPD occurs in four consecutive stages, as
described by Tharp and Gallimore (1991). In the first other-assistance stage,learners will perform while frequently assisted by more capable others. Gradually,
51

Vanbaelen & Harrison

they will move to the self-assistance level in which the support of others is lessneeded and progressively reduced. In the third automatization stage, learners
have appropriated the skills, can perform individually, and have thus steppedout of the ZPD. Finally, de-automatization, i.e., when skills decline due toinsufficient regular practice, might make the learner relapse to the ZPD in needof and possibly in search of assistance. The authors have depicted these stages
illustrated through cycling clipart (Irasutoya, 2014) in Figure 1.
Successful learning is moving from a current level of development (what thelearner can do alone) through the ZPD (what the learner can do with assistance)
to attain a new level of development (what they previously could not do alone oreven with assistance but is now internalized.) This process requires effort fromboth the learner and instructor. The learner must be receptive to assistance, but it
is especially the task of the instructor to assess what kind of assistance the learnerrequires when and for how long. Assessing the student’s knowledge is one of themain issues encountered when trying to determine their position in the ZPD.
Wood and Middleton (1975) state that: “The sensitive instructor continually
modifies his or her approach to the teaching task on the basis of the tutees
responses” (p. 190). Put differently, an instructor needs to alternate the style

Figure 1. Authors’ depiction of the four stages of learning in and around the ZDP.

52

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

of instruction and choose explicit and specific instructions when the student
is struggling in the other-assistance stage. Assistance should be provided until
the student makes progress. Smoother task completion is a sign that assistanceshould become more implicit and less specific as the learner moves into the selfassistance stage and eventually into the automatization stage beyond the ZPD.
Efficient activities with a content connected to what students understand andrelate to will help learners move through the respective stages in and beyond the
ZPD. The instructor, however, needs to continuously gauge the balance between
the task difficulty and the skills already developed by the students in order tokeep them motivated. A task that is too challenging will create frustration; onethat is too easy will cause a loss of interest. To support learners, Wigglesworth
and Storch (2009) suggest dynamic assessment. In contrast with traditional
assessment that aims to check what learners know or can do at a given moment,
dynamic assessment aims to discover and provide the type of assistance that isneeded to help the learner successfully complete the task or obtain the desired
knowledge. The current study assesses the learners’ needs from task to task andadjusts assistance on an ongoing basis.
The above description of assisting learner performance with scaffolding
as learners move through and beyond the ZPD provided the framework forthe in-class activities to achieve the course output goals and objectives. All EC
course instructors were free to decide on course content as long as the spoken
and written output goals and objectives were met within the course theme
constraints, e.g., travel and culture. The instructor for this data set opted for the
instruction of paragraph writing skills in order for 1) these university students
to step up from sentence-level writing, 2) to integrate speaking and writing
activities which mutually support each other, and 3) to prepare students formore academic-oriented speaking and writing tasks that they will face in thenext level course if they continue on to the second semester. Both teacher andpeer assistance were employed to enable students to individually write structured
paragraphs. For most students the learning process was assumed to be as follows.
Students know the concept of a paragraph but do not have the skills to write one
because they are, for example, unaware of the structure. This positions them on
53

Vanbaelen & Harrison

one side of a continuum, the level of potential development, where they struggle
to produce a paragraph independently, clearly needing assistance. As part of thescaffolding, instruction with examples, interaction with instructor and peers, andpractice will move them into the ZPD, more centrally located on the continuum,
and beyond. The ZPD is not static but shifts back and forth according to thelearner’s improvement or regression. Through continued assisted performance, it
is hoped that students in this course will reach the level of actual development at
the opposite end of the continuum where they can perform independently andindividually write structured paragraphs.

Methods
Participant sample
Out of 230 students belonging to STEM majors as physics, mathematics, civilengineering, aerospace engineering, etc. and enrolled in six classes of English
Communication, 196 passed the course, 19 completed the course but failed, and
15 did not complete the term. The writing goal was for each student to complete
5 individual in-class writings each in the form of a structured paragraph. Students
finishing 3 writings (n = 26) or 2 writings or less (n = 27) were not includedin the analysis. This resulted in a sample of 177 students who completed 4 or 5
writings, with a total of 839 writings. Of these, 131 (74%) students completed 5
writings, and 46 (26%) students completed 4 writings. Of the 177 students, 138(78%) were second-year students, 38 were third-year students (21.5%), and 1 wasa fourth-year student (0.5%). The second-year students were third-year students
in senior high school during the time of the before-mentioned MEXT survey(2015). Therefore, it is believed that more than 80% of the sample had a writinglevel close to CEFR A1 as levels do not rise significantly in university. Matsuura,
Fujieda, and Mahoney (2004) reported that more than 40% of both teachers andstudents at university level believed an intermediate English proficiency level foruniversity students upon graduation was ideal. Their description of intermediate,however, leans closer to the CEFR A2 level, i.e., basic user, and only slightly higher
than the A1 level that most of the students in the current sample likely have.

54Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

Data analysis: Word count analysis
A total of five individual 10-minute timed handwritten writings were
implemented in class and collected. All writings were scored, and handwritten
feedback was added. For each writing the number of words was counted manuallyby the instructor and input in a spreadsheet per individual.
The word count was considered an indicator for writing fluency, consistent
with Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) who regard “length of production” (p.
451) as fluency. With the traditional 8-sentence paragraph structure used inclass, a basic yet properly structured paragraph needs a minimum of around 40
words. However, such a paragraph can be thought to contain very little sentencestyle variation (SVO) and little vocabulary variation. A higher word count ishypothesized as to correspond with a better structured paragraph with moresentence variation.
Data analysis: Paragraph structure analysis
Analyzing the paragraph structure of 839 writings and describing the results were
not feasible within the span of this study. Four groups were created, and a selected
number of writings were analyzed. The students for the groups were chosen
through both word count and subjective instructor observation of behavior andperformance. Based on group dynamics during class, different groups within thesample could be identified. Group 1 was composed of students who seemed to
struggle with pair talks and writing yet improved throughout the term. Group2 consisted of students who seemed to have a more advanced level than those ingroup 3 but decided not to use all scaffolding to their advantage. In contrast, group
3 used all available scaffolding such as visuals, handouts, etc. to their advantage,reflected on the feedback in later writings, and hence steadily improved. During
the term, this group exhibited more motivation than group 2, as evidenced bytheir greater willingness to communicate with the instructor. Group 4 consistedof students with a higher English proficiency than the other three groups. These
were students with experience abroad, more exposure to English, or simply more
personal interest which led to higher proficiency by the time they were sophomores.
They could allocate more of their effort into the paragraph structure, while the55

Vanbaelen & Harrison

other groups had to divide their time between sentence writing and structuring
those sentences. For each group, five students who completed five writings (25writings per group, 100 writings in total) were selected.
Based on Zemach and Rumisek (2003) an 8-sentence-minimum paragraphstructure was taught in class near the onset of the course during weeks 2 and 3.
A single paragraph starts with a title and is written in a block format. The first
sentence (topic sentence) is indented and includes the topic and three mainideas concerning the topic. This sentence is followed by primary and secondary
supporting sentences (i.e., explanation and examples) for each main idea. The
final sentence is the concluding sentence that repeats the topic and the mainideas. For the analysis, each element was given a point with a maximum scoreof 17 points per analyzed paragraph, as shown in Table 1. Issues with grammar,
spelling, and coherence were addressed as part of the feedback process, but due
to the scope of cataloging the range of possible errors and differences in style,these are not part of this analysis.
Methods of Scaffolding
One of the course goals was for students to write a structured paragraph without
assistance by the end of the 15-week term. To achieve this, at the beginningof the term, student writing skills had to be assessed to provide them withadequate assistance. As mentioned earlier, an excess of scaffolding makes thetask too easy, and a lack thereof creates learner frustration as it puts the learneroutside of the ZPD in a zone where performance is impossible. What follows
is a description of the pre-writing tasks, in-class instruction and practice, thematerials that were used as scaffolding, and feedback from the instructor.
As a pre-writing task in Week 2, students conducted interviews of theirclassmates. Interviewees were instructed to provide extra information in theiranswers. For example, a question related to one’s hometown was to be answeredwith additional information of what the place is known for. As a writing task,
students were to introduce one peer in 10 sentences using information fromthe interview exercise. The results for this writing task (not included in thispaper) indicated little experience with writing a coherent text in English.
56

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71
Table 1
Rubric for Paragraph Structure Analysis
Analysis Items

Score

1. The paragraph starts with a title.

1

2. The paragraph is written in block format (not a new line for each sentence).

1

3. The first sentence of the paragraph is indented.

1

4. The topic sentence includes the topic and 3 main ideas.

4

5. Main idea 1 explained as primary support and an example is given as secondary support.

2

6. Main idea 2 explained as primary support and an example is given as secondary support.

2

7. Main idea 3 explained as primary support and an example is given as secondary support.

2

8. The concluding sentence includes the topic and the 3 main ideas.

4

Maximum Score

17

Writings tended to take a format of one numbered sentence per line with ablank line, presumable provided for corrections (Table 2). During the followup class discussion, students admitted to never encountering the writing styleof the example in Table 2 in real life, that is, in textbooks, newspapers, novels,
letters etc. in neither English nor Japanese. Students came up with things
such as transitions between sentences as lacking elements in their writings,
but no student mentioned essential elements like the topic or a conclusion.
Consequently, students were determined to need extensive scaffolding to attainthe set goal of writing a structured paragraph unassisted.
In Week 3, students were taught the writing process of a paragraph in fivedetailed steps: 1. Decide the topic, 2. Brainstorm about the topic throughmapping, 3. Edit the map to narrow down the topic, 4. Learn the structure of a
traditional paragraph, and 5. Write structured paragraphs using steps 1 through3. They then read a sample paragraph and color-coded the different sentences(topic sentence, explanation (x3), example (x3), concluding sentence). Handouts
and slideshows were provided to students to demonstrate these concepts.
57

Vanbaelen & Harrison
Table 2Student Example of Writing Assignment Week 2
1. My partner’s name is XXX.
2. His department is the Department of YYY.
3. He is in the fourth year.
4. He likes to listen to music.
5. He usually listen to music.
6. He likes jazz.
7. He likes rock.
8. His favorite player is Lady Gaga.
9. He is from ZZZ.
10. It is a city in Kanto, in Eastern of Japan.

Next, students were instructed to write a paragraph in small groups of two
to three in class, following the five-step process. Students assisted each otherduring the group task. The instructor would provide guidance in class by asking
the students to point out elements (topic sentence, main ideas, etc.) in theirwriting, or assist them formulate explanations or examples. The writing was
submitted to the instructor at the end of the class, and that led to writing an
individual paragraph as a homework assignment. For both tasks, handouts, notes
and dictionaries were available as scaffolding tools. The homework writings were
submitted digitally via email.
In Week 4, written instructor feedback regarding the group and individual
writings was provided. The feedback consisted of a checklist (Table 3) concerning
paragraph structure, and additional comments on grammar and usage errors.
Between weeks 4 and 13, five sets of “Speaking & Presenting” (evennumber weeks) and “Speaking & Writing” (odd-number weeks) activities were
implemented as follows. Students did weekly pair talks of 10 to 15 minutes on
topics provided by the instructor (Table 4). In the weeks with an even number,
58

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71
Table 3Checklist Example
1. You added a title.

Yes / No

2. You indented the first sentence of a paragraph, three to five spaces.

Yes / No

3. You wrote in paragraph form (block of sentences, not a new line foreach sentence).

Yes / No

4. You color-coded the paragraph.

Yes / No

Topic sentence with the topic and the main ideas (color 1)
Explanation for main idea 1 (color 2)
Example for main idea 1 (color 3)
Explanation for main idea 2 (color 2)
Example for main idea 2 (color 3)
Explanation for main idea 3 (color 2)
Example for main idea 3 (color 3)
Concluding sentence (color 4)
5. Your topic sentence includes the topic and the three main ideas.

Yes / No

6. You used explanations and examples for each main idea.

Yes / No

7. Your concluding sentence includes the topic and the three mainideas.

Yes / No

8. The grammar is correct.

Yes / Mostly correct /Many mistakes / No

9. The meaning of your writing is clear.

Yes / Mostly correct /Many mistakes / No

3 to 4 students per class presented about the content of their talk. No writing
was done. In the weeks with an odd number, instead of presenting after the
speaking activity, all students wrote a ten-minute timed paragraph about the59Vanbaelen & Harrison

topic discussed during the speaking activity. As writing aids, they had access tonotes, handouts and dictionaries. In addition, during most weeks, oral and/or
visual samples were provided by the instructor, shown in parentheses in Table 4.
Students were not informed about the alternation to avoid students starting towrite their paragraphs during the time set aside for the speaking activity.
Alternating between “Speaking & Presenting” and “Speaking & Writing”
had multiple functions. First, “Speaking & Presenting” prepared the students
for “Speaking & Writing” of the next week, due to the use of similar topics inline with Schwieter’s (2010) variability reduction hypothesis. For example, Set
Table 4
Overview of Topics and Availability of Samples
Speaking & Presentation
Even-number Week of Set

Speaking & Writing
Odd-Number Week of Set

Set
1Your plans for the upcoming holiday.

Your activities during the holiday.

(No sample)(Oral sample in paragraph format)

Set
2

What is your favorite restaurant?

What is a good place in your city to havefun?

(Slide with color-coded paragraph sample) (Slide with color-coded paragraph sample)
Set
3

What place in Japan should tourists
definitely visit?

What place in Japan do you want to visit
the most?

(Slide with color-coded paragraph sample) (Slide with color-coded paragraph sample)
Set
4

Set
5

What is your favorite subject at theuniversity?

What are your summer holiday plans?

(Slide with paragraph sample, not colorcoded)(Slide with paragraph sample, not colorcoded)

What company do you want to work for?

Why do you want to work for thatcompany? What skills do you need andwhat are you doing now to attain them?

(Short oral sample, non-paragraph format)(Oral sample in paragraph format)

60

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

2 dealt with personal enjoyment. The first topic was to speak and present abouta favorite restaurant, and the second topic was to speak and write about a place
to have fun. Next, the alternation lowered the pressure on students who tend to
consider writing more as a burden than talking. It also lowered the instructor’s
workload of weekly correcting an average of 180+ writings and providing
individual feedback.
The topics covered in the five sets were chosen for their close relation to
student life. Students could easily identify themselves with the topics, thisto facilitate engagement in the speaking, presenting and writing activities.
Additionally, the topics had a horizontal and vertical scaffolding function, as
shown in Table 4. Horizontally, similar topics challenge the students for example
to use the future and past tense (Set 1), or to expand vocabulary (Set 2-5).
Vertically, the topic complexity increased gradually from Set 1 through Set 5.
Feedback from the instructor as scaffolding
Instead of simply correcting student errors, Schwieter (2010) points out thatcombining corrections with expert feedback increases student understanding.
Two types of feedback were used throughout the course, namely oral and written
feedback. Written feedback was directed at individual students. General oral
feedback was aimed at the group as a whole and more detailed feedback at
individuals. The checklist in Table 3 is an example of written feedback. The list
had a double function. For the instructor it served as a standard upon which toscore the initial writings, and for students it was a structural scaffolding tool that
included all elements of paragraph writings for later reference. For Writings 1
through 5, besides grammar and vocabulary corrections, the instructor handwrote
feedback before returning the writings to the students. A scaffolding evolution
can be seen in the focus of the feedback. As a general tendency, for Writings 1
and 2, feedback concentrated on the paragraph format and the beginning of
the paragraph, including for example suggestions to write in paragraph format,
to add a title and to include the three main ideas in the topic sentence. Later
feedback focused more on the body of the paragraph (“Explain the main ideas a
bit more.”) and towards the end of the term the conclusion (“In the conclusion,
61

Vanbaelen & Harrison

repeat the topic and the three main ideas.”). To foster student motivation,
feedback also included praise (“Nice writing!” “Good luck with [the topic thestudents wrote about]”) and suggestions for improvement. Suggestions included
general remarks such as “Adding extra information about the main ideas would
make your writing even better,” as well as concrete examples such as “A suggestion
for the conclusion: … but the island’s nature, its fresh food and my grandparents’stories excite me every time.”
From a ZPD point of view, it would have been counter-productive tooverwhelm students who were still struggling to write a topic sentence withexcessive feedback about the lack of other paragraph elements. Therefore,
although a general tendency can be seen with feedback focus gradually movingfrom paragraph format (title, block writing) to content elements (main idea
explanation and examples, conclusion, etc.), feedback was individualized andcatered to the needs of each student, i.e., individual student position in the ZPD.
Oral feedback/support aimed at the class group as a whole followed atendency similar to the written feedback. Initial oral feedback consisted ofpointing out the importance of style elements (add a title, use indentation, andwrite in block format) when returning previous writings and having students
repeat these elements before they started a new writing task. It then shifted tothe body with a focus on explaining the main ideas and gradually moved to theconclusion. Unlike the individualized written feedback, oral feedback was moregeneral as the goal was to familiarize students with all paragraph elements.

Results and Discussion

The average word count of 839 writings completed during five writing sessions
is shown in Figure 2. Students gradually increased the number of words per
writing, although the allotted 10-minute limit remained the same. The types ofscaffolding used to assist students with writing and move within the ZPD closer
to the level of actual development where they can perform without assistance will
be discussed later in this section. In Writing 5, a decrease in word count occurred.
This will also be examined.
To understand student skill development concerning paragraph structure, a62Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

Figure 2. Average word count per writing.

total of 100 writings (25 per group) introduced in the section about paragraphstructure analysis, were scored in terms of paragraph structure.
First, the average word count per group per writing (Table 5) is discussed.
The respective groups had the following characteristics. Group 1 students
improved slightly in word count throughout five writings. This may indicate low
English proficiency or low motivation. The average of the group 2 word countresults form a typical (for this analysis) curve. Students improved until Writing
4, but the word count dropped in Writing 5. The analysis verified that this groupdeveloped in a similar manner to group 1 but with a higher beginning and ending
point. Group 3 students started with a word count below or around average, but
steadily improved the count through Writing 5. In the whole sample, only a few
students had a learning curve like this. Accordingly, also students who had adecrease in word count of 3 or less were included. The analysis on the paragraphstructure was done to verify if their increase happened in a similar manner in theparagraph structure evolution. Group 4 included students with a high start (60+words in Writing 1) indicating a higher proficiency than other students.
As for paragraph structure elements, the results are summarized in Figure
3, indicating group average scores per writing. The groups steadily increased the63Vanbaelen & Harrison

amount of structure elements used in Writings 1 through 4. However, in Writing
5, the use of structural elements seems to have collapsed. The paragraph structure
evolution per group is given in Figures 4-7. Especially regarding the use of format
elements (the use of a title and a block format, with the first sentence indented),
the topic sentence mentioning the topic and the first main idea, explanations,and examples of the first and second main idea were acquired. These are elements
for which a high score was obtained. A large portion of the students lacked
inclusion of the second and third main ideas in the topic sentence, providing
information about the third main idea, and completing the paragraph with aconclusion that repeats the topic and the three main ideas.
In Week 3, students completed group and individual writing assignments.
The average group paragraph and individual paragraph scores, based on the
Table 3 Checklist, were 67% and 63%, respectively. Based on these scores,
the instructor assessed the students to have appropriated the basic paragraphstructure and to be able to write a paragraph after the pair talk activity withlimited scaffolding, i.e., only the aid of an oral sample before the start of thewriting activity and with dictionaries, notes, and handouts during the activity.
However, both the word count (Figure 2) and the score on structure elements(Figure 3) were low for Writing 1.
Consequently, scaffolding was increased for Set 2. A slide with a color-coded
paragraph sample was displayed during the entire time of the activities, in an
attempt to minimize frustration during learning development (Schwieter, 2010).
Coding the elements of a paragraph in different colors (Table 3) facilitated
Table 5
Average Word Count per Group per WritingGroup

Writing 1

Writing 2

Writing 3

Writing 4

Writing 5Group 1

21.8

33.4

37.4

38.4

28.4

Group 2

44.2

61.4

77.8

86

72.6

Group 3

39.2

58.2

66.8

80.2

83.4

Group 4

75.2

78

95.4

104.4

73.2

64

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

Figure 3. Paragraph structure score averages (Max. 17) per group per writing.

Figure 4. Group 1 average progression of structure use across 5 writings.

student recognition of what they had to include in their writing. This type ofscaffolding was used again for Set 3. A positive increase in word count and theuse of structural elements for Writing 2 and 3 signified a shift in the continuum.
Students were moving away from the level of potential development where they65

Vanbaelen & Harrison

Figure 5. Group 2 average progression of structure use across 5 writings.

Figure 6. Group 3 average progression of structure use across 5 writings.

could not produce a paragraph with assistance or let alone independently andthey are moving closer towards the level of actual development where they can
perform independently. Most groups, except for group 1, had mastered moststructural elements (Figures 4-7). Lacking elements were the conclusion with a66

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

Figure 7. Group 4 average progression of structure use across 5 writings.

repetition of the main ideas. The instructor attributes this to a lack of time tofinish the paragraph.
For Set 4, the visual scaffolding was reduced from a color-coded sample
to one that was not color-coded. Writing 4 follows a similar trend as Writing
2 and 3. The number of words continued to increase, but the appropriation of
structural elements stagnated. Student location within the ZPD was thought
to be close to the level of actual development where task completion is possible
individually without scaffolding or other assistance. Accordingly, for Set 5, little
scaffolding was provided, and simultaneously the topic difficulty was increased.
Unlike the positive increase in Writings 2 through 4, both the word count andthe use of structural elements decreased in Writing 5. This suggests once more thecomplexity of determining a learner’s ZPD and keeping the scaffolding balanced
to provide the learners sufficient assistance without boring them. Removing thescaffolding in stages, i.e., first withholding the paragraph sample, and next using
a more difficult topic would have probably lessened the burden for the students
necessary to sustain the word count and use of structural elements at a level equal
to Writing 4.
According to Ohta (2005), assistance in the ZPD happens in a two-fold
67

Vanbaelen & Harrison

manner, i.e., through other- and self-management. Based on the evolution
witnessed from Writing 1 to 4, the instructor’s assistance (other-management) in
the form of a paragraph sample slide was gradually withdrawn. Learners still had
the possibility to self-manage tools such as handouts, notes, and dictionaries they
regarded as relevant for their needs, but few used them to their full advantage;
few students carried a dictionary or handouts, or took notes during the prewriting speaking task. This is another indication the learners of this sample had
not yet academically matured sufficiently to understand the usefulness of suchtools and successfully “manage the ZPD for themselves as they interact bothwith people and with other L2 sources” (Ohta, 2005, p. 506). Continued othermanaged assistance was needed but timewise difficult within the span of one
semester.

Conclusion

The paragraph writing process of 177 ESL undergraduate students at a private
Japanese university was documented. The number of words and the paragraphstructural elements increased gradually from Writing 1 through 4. This indicatesthe strategy of scaffolded topics, scaffolded class materials, and scaffolded
feedback was effective. The topics for each set of speaking and writing weresimilar yet sufficiently different. The materials included focuses on interviewing
and adding details, brainstorming, mapping, editing, paragraph examples, colorcoded paragraph structure examples and exercises, and checklists. The feedback
style chronologically moved from focusing on format elements at the start of thecourse to topic sentences, and then in the middle and end of the course feedback
focused more on the paragraph body and conclusion. Students with little writing
experience were able to move through the continuum of the ZPD from a nearzero skill level where paragraph writing was difficult even with assistance towards
a level of actual development where they can function without assistance within
a 15-week semester. The decline in word count and structural elements noticed in
Writing 5 suggests, however, that balancing the amount of scaffolding provided
and the complexity of the paragraph topic is a delicate task.
The course in which this writing project took place had a four-skills approach.
68

Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

Therefore, speaking, reading and listening also had to be addressed. This resulted
in time constraints for in-class writing tasks and related activities. Also, in thisstudy, peer interaction for the writing tasks was limited to the group writingthat students did before the start of the five individual writings because group
writings require extra time compared to individual ones. In addition, peers did
pair conversations weekly about topics similar to the writing task topics to help
familiarize themselves with new vocabulary and expressions. In further research,
allotting time for peer editing of the written product could be useful to help
beginner-level ESL learners become more fluent and confident writers.

References

Council of Europe: Global Scale - Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference
levels. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/en/web/common-europeanframework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levelsglobal-scale
IFIC/JICA [Institute for International Cooperation / Japan International
Cooperation Agency]. (2004). The History of Japan's Educational
Development. Retrieved from http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/
pdf/11778784.pdf
Irasutoya. (2014) Cycling [PNG] (in Japanese). Clipart images retrieved fromhttps://www.irasutoya.com/
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis ofsecond language development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Matsuura, H., Fujieda, M., & Mahoney, S. (2004). The officialization ofEnglish and ELT in Japan: 2000. World Englishes, 23(3), 471-487. doi.
org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00369.x
MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology].
(2015). Heisei 26nendo eigoryokuchousa (koukou 3nensei) kekka
no gaiyou [Brief overview of results of the English proficiency
survey (3rd-year high school students)]. Retrieved from http://
www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2015/07/03/1358071_01.pdf
69

Vanbaelen & Harrison

MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology].
(2016). Guide to Promoting ESD (Education for Sustainable
Development). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/
english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/11/21/1379653_01_1.pdf
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learnerdiscourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the Zone of Proximal
Development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom:
Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal
development. System, 33, 503-517. doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001
Schwieter, J. W. (2010). Developing second language writing throughscaffolding in the ZPD: A magazine project for an authentic audience.
Languages and Literatures Faculty Publications, 7(10), 31-45. Retrieved
from http://scholars.wlu.ca/lang_faculty/7
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. doi.
org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editingtask in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. doi.
org/10.1177/1362168807074600
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing schools to life. American
Educator, Summer 1989, 20-25 and 46-52. Retrieved from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/31640335_Rousing_Minds_to_Life_
Teaching_Learning_and_Schooling_in_Social_Context
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,and schooling in social context, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2008). From social interaction to higher psychological processes:
A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development,70Building Paragraph Writing Skills, OnCUE Journal, 12(1), pages 47-71

51, 66-79 (Reprint of Human Development (1979), 22, 1-22). doi.org/
10.1159/000112532
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects
on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. doi.
org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British
Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181-191. doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.
tb01454.x
Zemach, D. E., & Rumisek, L. A. (2003). College writing: From paragraph toessay. Oxford, England: Macmillan Publishers.

Author bios

Ruth Vanbaelen is an Associate Professor at the University of Tsukuba. She hasa background in sociolinguistics and currently instructs Japanese to international
students. For nearly a decade, she taught English to Japanese students. Most of her
courses are communication-oriented while aiming for a four-skill balance in classactivities. vanbaelen.ruth.gp@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Jonathan Harrison teaches writing, presenting, and various communication skills
to English language learning engineers in undergraduate and graduate courses. His
research interests include curriculum and educational material design, motivation,
edutainment and gamification, and study abroad. jon.harrison@nihon-u.ac.jp
Received: May 24, 2018
Accepted: October 22, 201871