Productive struggle—the process where learners grapple with tasks that are challenging yet achievable—fosters perseverance, deeper cognitive engagement, and long-term skill development. In English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms, this approach is particularly valuable as learners face linguistic complexities, such as mastering syntax, semantics, and cultural nuances, which require critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

As an ESL educator with firsthand experience of the challenges learners encounter, I have observed that excessive scaffolding can stifle student autonomy, while insufficient support can lead to frustration and disengagement. These observations, coupled with my role in developing a program to support English language acquisition in UAE government schools, have motivated me to explore how productive struggle can be effectively integrated into instruction. I believe that fostering resilience, critical thinking, and autonomy through this approach has the potential to transform language learning for English learners, particularly in contexts where long-term growth is essential.

This work aims to examine the theoretical foundations, empirical benefits, and practical strategies for implementing productive struggle effectively in ESL classrooms, offering insights for educators seeking to balance challenge and support to enhance learner outcomes.

In its debut in the Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, the phrase "productive struggle" was defined as "a natural part of the learning process where students engage in intellectual efforts to expand their understanding of challenging mathematical concepts, serving as a crucial element in effective teaching and learning" (Young et al., 2023). While initially research on productive struggle targeted learning in a mathematics or science context, its application has broadened to refer to learning anything.

Janet Pittok, Curriculum Director at McGraw-Hill Education, highlights this versatility in the video What is Productive Struggle and Why Is It Important?, stating, "Productive struggle is when it's not too easy, it's not too hard, and the student has to grapple with the learning, and this is a very engaging space" (McGraw Hill, 2017). 

(McGraw Hill Education, 2017, 0:01-1:37)

As Pittok expresses, the sense of achievement students experience after overcoming a learning challenge significantly contributes to the success of this concept. Productive struggle emphasizes creating scenarios where students are encouraged to use available resources and persevere through challenges, ultimately leading to more impactful and meaningful learning experiences. While the struggle in the classroom can mistakenly be viewed as a sign that things are going wrong, "the truth is that 'learning' and 'easy' don't usually go hand in hand". In fact, as explained in the Edutopia video below, "It’s when students are pushed beyond their comfort zone, to solve problems that are hard – but still within their ability that they engage in productive struggle and dramatically improve their learning outcomes" (Edutopia, 2021).

(Edutopia, 2021. 0:01 - 2:17)

As explained in the Edutopia video, “How Productive Struggle Fires Up Learners,” students are encouraged to move beyond their comfort zones to solve challenges that are just within reach. The video reinforces how this process develops perseverance and critical thinking, which are particularly valuable in ESL learning contexts. Teachers can use this resource to illustrate the concept of productive struggle for students and frame it as a positive and necessary learning experience.

From these definitions, it is clear that productive struggle refers to the process in which learners engage with challenging tasks requiring sustained effort, persistence, and critical thinking. This approach fosters a deeper understanding and more durable learning outcomes (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). It also involves grappling with problems or concepts just beyond current proficiency levels, supported by appropriate scaffolding to encourage growth, independence, and long-term mastery (Vygotsky, 1978; Azi, 2020). Through this understanding, we can identify clear connections to key theoretical foundations in education (Young et al., 2023).

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding

Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) remains foundational in understanding how learners make progress through guided support. The ZPD is defined as the space where learners can perform tasks with assistance that they could not yet achieve independently.

Figure 1 New Learning Online, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: What a learner can do with the help of social supports around them. https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/social-cognitivism-towards-new-learning.

This principle underpins the use of scaffolding, which provides learners with temporary support tailored to their specific needs, enabling them to overcome challenges and internalize skills (Wood et al., 1976; Vygotsky, 1978). In English as a Second Language (ESL) learning, productive struggle occurs within this zone as learners engage with language tasks that require effort but remain achievable with appropriate scaffolding (Gibbons, 2015). For example, strategies such as teacher modeling, sentence frames, or guided questioning help learners tackle complex tasks like composing descriptive essays or engaging in structured dialogues (Tatum & Huber, 2020; Azi, 2020). Over time, as scaffolding is gradually reduced, learners gain independence and confidence, following the principles of the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). This process is further explained in the below explanatory video: 

(Helpful Professor Explains, 2024. 0:01 - 3:56)

Recent research emphasizes the continued relevance of ZPD and scaffolding in language education. Azi (2020) demonstrates the effectiveness of scaffolding in teaching ESL writing by using case studies that highlight the role of targeted support in helping learners develop narrative skills​. Similarly, Tatum and Huber (2020) underscore the importance of consistent scaffolding practices in K–12 ESL classrooms, highlighting how strategic scaffolding enhances comprehension and engagement​. Warndini et al. (2023) further explore how designed-in scaffolding supports young learners in creating multimodal texts, illustrating how scaffolding can be adapted to diverse classroom contexts​.

Moreover, recent advancements in technology have expanded the application of scaffolding through information and communication tools. Yang et al. (2019) provide a compelling example of using technology-based scaffolding to improve students' problem-solving abilities and foster autonomous learning in English classrooms. Their study found that students who engaged with interactive scaffolding resources demonstrated higher levels of motivation and performance.

While Vygotsky’s ZPD emphasizes the role of scaffolding in guiding learners through challenging tasks, critics like Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013) argue that excessive scaffolding may inadvertently inhibit learner independence. They caution that providing too much support prevents students from grappling with challenges autonomously, a key element of productive struggle. This critique highlights the need for educators to strike a balance between scaffolding and opportunities for self-initiated exploration.

Piaget’s Constructivist Theory

While Vygotsky’s ZPD highlights the importance of providing external support to learners, Piaget’s constructivist framework shifts the focus to how learners actively construct knowledge by engaging with their environment. Both theories align closely with productive struggle as they emphasize the role of challenge and exploration in deepening understanding. By encouraging learners to interact with their surroundings and collaborate with peers, Piaget’s constructivism provides another lens for understanding how scaffolding can be adapted to foster autonomy and resilience in ESL contexts.

In ESL classrooms, constructivist principles encourage engagement in exploratory activities like collaborative storytelling or problem-solving tasks, where learners negotiate meaning and apply linguistic structures iteratively. For instance, role-play scripts challenge students to explore language creatively while deepening their understanding through revisions.

Recent studies reinforce this view. Waite-Stupiansky (2017) emphasizes that active engagement, rather than rote memorization, fosters cognitive growth in learners​. Chand (2023) further notes that constructivism thrives in student-centered environments, which empower learners to take ownership of their language development​. These findings suggest that scaffolding in ESL classrooms should focus on creating opportunities for learners to construct knowledge actively, fostering autonomy and resilience in language acquisition.

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and Swain’s Output Hypothesis

Whereas Piaget emphasizes the active construction of knowledge, Krashen and Swain focus on the linguistic input and output processes that drive second language acquisition. Both theories intersect with scaffolding and productive struggle by highlighting how learners grow when challenged to process language just beyond their current abilities, known as “i+1.”. Scaffolding plays a critical role in ensuring that learners can access comprehensible input (Krashen) and refine their understanding through output-based tasks (Swain). For instance, an ESL learner watching a subtitled video slightly above their proficiency level must draw on contextual clues to understand the content, building comprehension skills incrementally.

Swain’s (1995) Output Hypothesis complements this by emphasizing that producing language—whether through speaking or writing—reveals knowledge gaps, encouraging learners to refine their understanding. Collaborative tasks, such as group discussions or essay writing, support this productive struggle by creating opportunities for feedback and negotiation. Recent research by Swain and Watanabe (2019) underscores the importance of scaffolding in these tasks, enabling learners to develop linguistic competence through peer interaction. Together, these hypotheses advocate for scaffolded activities that integrate input and output, promoting deeper engagement and linguistic growth in ESL contexts.

Cognitive Load Theory and Language Tasks

Krashen’s and Swain’s hypotheses illustrate how challenge and support can optimize second language learning. Building on this idea, Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) offers a framework for ensuring that tasks are structured to manage cognitive demands effectively. By balancing task difficulty and scaffolding support, CLT provides practical strategies to foster productive struggle without overwhelming learners. McGraw Hill (2019) provides a clear and brief explanation of CLT in the below video:

(McGraw Hill, 2019. 0:01 - 2:54)

Effective instructional design minimizes extraneous cognitive load (e.g., distractions) while maximizing germane load, which focuses on meaningful cognitive effort. In practice, this means creating structured tasks like peer discussions or collaborative vocabulary exercises that channel learners’ cognitive resources toward language acquisition.

Recent research demonstrates the value of scaffolding in managing cognitive load. Yen et al. (2015) show that calibrating task complexity enhances schema construction in language learners, ensuring tasks remain challenging yet achievable​. Kristiana (2015) highlights how CLT-based instructional models improve comprehension and retention in second-language learners by balancing difficulty with support​. These findings underline the critical role of scaffolding in designing cognitively demanding tasks that support productive struggle without overwhelming learners.

The following figure summarizes the interplay of scaffolding and these theoretical perspectives—Vygotsky’s ZPD, Piaget’s Constructivism, Krashen’s Input/Output Hypotheses, and Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory—highlighting their collective impact on productive struggle in ESL learning.

Figure 2 Created by the author 2024, The relationship between scaffolding and key educational theories in supporting productive struggle in ESL learning

While Vygotsky’s ZPD emphasizes the importance of scaffolding and social interaction to help learners move to the next stage of their development, Piaget’s constructivist theory focuses on the learner’s active role in building knowledge through exploration. A key difference lies in their perspectives on guidance: Vygotsky advocates for carefully tailored support, while Piaget highlights the need for self-initiated discovery without over-reliance on external input.

This distinction raises an important critique: Can too much scaffolding undermine productive struggle? While scaffolding aligns with Vygotsky’s emphasis on social mediation, Piaget’s framework cautions that excessive intervention may prevent learners from experiencing autonomy, an argument supported by Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013). Similarly, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, which emphasizes comprehensible input (i+1), contrasts with Swain’s Output Hypothesis, which stresses the value of language production through meaningful struggle. This interplay between “input” and “output” highlights a key tension: How can educators balance guided scaffolding with opportunities for self-discovery and production?

Ultimately, effective application of these theories requires a hybrid approach—carefully calibrated scaffolding that fosters autonomy while offering sufficient challenge to ensure learners remain engaged in productive struggle.

Research continues to affirm the critical role of productive struggle in deepening ESL learners' engagement with linguistic challenges. Hiebert and Grouws (2007) highlighted that students who engage with tasks requiring sustained effort develop deeper, more durable language skills than those who receive immediate answers. Productive struggle in ESL classrooms fosters perseverance and problem-solving skills, which are essential for long-term linguistic success.

Building on this, Ellis (2003) demonstrated the effectiveness of task-based learning in various contexts. His research revealed that when learners grappled with challenging tasks—such as planning collaborative projects in English—their confidence and ability to retain complex vocabulary improved significantly. This aligns with Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995), which emphasizes the importance of learners identifying and addressing gaps in their understanding through language production.

Further, Rohrer, Taylor, and Sholar (2010) conducted a study revealing that students exposed to increasingly complex listening and speaking tasks retained grammatical structures and vocabulary more effectively compared to those who received immediate corrective feedback.

Recent research also highlights the value of scaffolding productive struggle in writing. Azi (2020) conducted a case study on scaffolding within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), demonstrating that targeted support enabled ESL learners to incrementally develop their narrative and descriptive writing skills. Similarly, Tatum and Huber (2020) emphasized the importance of consistent scaffolding in K–12 classrooms, showing how it enhances learner comprehension and engagement.

To address individual needs dynamically, Chung et al. (2012) explored the role of computer adaptive technology (CAT) in scaffolding productive struggle. Their findings revealed that CAT platforms adjust task difficulty to meet learners' ZPD, leading to improved engagement and persistence.

To implement productive struggle effectively, educators can integrate task-based learning, collaborative activities, and scaffolding techniques into classroom instruction. These strategies allow learners to engage with language use meaningfully while developing independence and resilience.

Task-based Learning

Task-based learning offers a particularly valuable framework for promoting productive struggle in ESL classrooms. Ellis (2003) provides an example where learners were tasked with planning a group trip in English. Initially, the task presented challenges as learners grappled with unfamiliar phrases and expressions. However, the teacher scaffolded the process by introducing sentence frames and model dialogues to help learners organize their ideas and communicate effectively. Through structured peer collaboration and targeted teacher support, learners not only gained fluency but also developed confidence in using English for practical purposes. This example highlights the importance of designing tasks that reflect real-world situations and require learners to problem-solve, persevere, and apply language skills in context.

Figure 3 Schools Week, Image of students collaborating in a classroom. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/how-can-we-encourage-effective-collaboration-in-the-classroom/.

Supporting this approach, Shafaei and Rahim (2015) conducted a study in Iranian EFL classrooms where students participated in project-based learning activities. The study revealed a significantly higher vocabulary retention rate and improved confidence levels in the PBL group compared to traditional lecture-based methods. Similarly, Richards and Rodgers (2014) examined Saudi Arabian learners engaged in task-based interviews. Participants’ speaking fluency scores improved by 15% after completing tasks with scaffolding, demonstrating the effectiveness of real-world, collaborative problem-solving. The findings revealed that students' speaking fluency improved as they persevered through the challenges with appropriate scaffolding from teachers. Together, these studies emphasize that task-based learning fosters productive struggle by combining meaningful, real-world tasks with dynamic scaffolding.

Collaborative Writing Activities

Collaborative writing activities provide an excellent opportunity for scaffolding productive struggle. Azi (2020) emphasizes that ESL learners benefit greatly from targeted instructional support when tackling complex writing tasks. For instance, when learners begin composing descriptive essays, teachers can provide sentence starters or guided questions to help them structure their ideas. Gradually, these supports are removed, encouraging learners to write independently and refine their skills through practice and peer feedback. This process, often described as the gradual release of responsibility, ensures that learners gain autonomy at a pace that fosters confidence and skill mastery.

Figure 4 Alternative Amie, Collaborative Writing: The Pros and Cons for Education. https://alternativeamie.com/2023/06/19/collaborative-writing-the-pros-and-cons-for-education/.

Further supporting the value of scaffolding in collaborative writing, Hsieh and Kang (2010) found that Taiwanese EFL learners demonstrated a 20% improvement in writing performance and a significant increase in metacognitive awareness after engaging in scaffolded narrative and argumentative writing tasks. The study revealed that learners who persisted through these challenges developed improved self-regulation and critical thinking skills, reinforcing the importance of scaffolding in fostering productive struggle. These findings highlight the critical role of peer interaction, teacher feedback, and gradual independence in collaborative writing activities.

Speaking Skills Development

Productive struggle in developing speaking skills is particularly impactful when learners are encouraged to engage in real-world speaking tasks. Richards and Rodgers (2014) provide a compelling case where Saudi Arabian ESL learners participated in authentic speaking tasks, such as role-play and interviews. These tasks required students to persevere through initial challenges related to fluency and vocabulary use. The structured scaffolding provided—through modeling, teacher feedback, and peer practice—enabled learners to build confidence and refine their spoken English incrementally. This process aligns with Swain’s (1995) Output Hypothesis, which emphasizes that identifying gaps during language production encourages learners to refine their understanding and develop linguistic competence.

Figure 5 English Teaching, Speaking activities for English class. https://englishteaching101.com/speaking-activities-english-class/.

Additionally, Shrestha and Coffin (2012) highlight the role of dynamic scaffolding in academic speaking development. In their study of ESL university students in the UK, learners engaged in problem-solving discussions and collaborative presentations. Teacher feedback and peer interaction provided critical scaffolds that supported learners' efforts to articulate their ideas clearly. As scaffolding was gradually reduced, students gained greater fluency and confidence in academic communication. These examples underscore that speaking tasks when carefully scaffolded, challenge learners to persevere, identify knowledge gaps, and refine their skills.

Technology Integration

Technology integration has also emerged as a powerful tool for fostering productive struggle in modern ESL classrooms. Platforms such as Duolingo, Smart Sparrow, and other computer adaptive technology (CAT) tools adjust task difficulty in real time based on individual learners’ proficiency levels. For example, Scalise (2004) emphasized that CAT tools match a student’s Zone of Proximal Development with assessment tasks customized and personalized to their needs, providing tailored support that effectively supports developmental progress. By offering tailored support and consistent challenges, these tools help learners persevere through linguistic tasks that push them just beyond their current abilities.

Figure 6 Boston University, Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) infographic. https://sites.bu.edu/libre/files/2016/06/CAT-Infographic.png.

However, while tools like CAT platforms dynamically adjust task complexity, they may overlook the emotional and cultural contexts of learners. Scalise (2004) highlights that although CAT tools provide personalized, tailored assessments, they may lack the nuanced understanding of individual affective needs, which can impact motivation. For instance, a struggling learner from a collectivist culture may interpret repeated algorithmic corrections as failure rather than support (Li, 2012). Addressing these concerns, Yang et al. (2019) argue for a hybrid approach, combining CAT platforms with regular teacher feedback to provide both cognitive scaffolding and emotional support. This ensures that technology enhances productive struggle while maintaining the irreplaceable role of human interaction in language learning.

Each of these strategies—task-based learning, collaborative writing, speaking skills development, and adaptive technologies—demonstrates how productive struggle can be carefully integrated into classroom instruction. The inclusion of culturally responsive scaffolding and real-world case studies highlights the importance of dynamic, context-sensitive approaches. When implemented thoughtfully, these strategies provide learners with structured opportunities to engage deeply with challenging language tasks while fostering independence, resilience, and long-term growth.

To assess the effectiveness of these strategies, educators can incorporate measurable success indicators aligned with key educational theories and research-based practices. These indicators evaluate how well productive struggle fosters durable learning, engagement, and autonomy in ESL learners. The table below summarizes key metrics for assessing the effectiveness of productive struggle strategies in ESL contexts, linking each metric to relevant theoretical foundations and clarifying its significance in measuring learning outcomes.

By combining qualitative and quantitative measures—such as retention rates, performance growth, engagement metrics, and confidence indicators—educators can holistically evaluate how productive struggle strategies promote:

• Resilience: Learners’ ability to persist through challenging tasks.
• Independence: Gradual autonomy in tackling language challenges.
• Deeper Language Acquisition: Durable retention and improved performance in speaking, writing, and comprehension.

This approach ensures alignment with theoretical principles, offering educators practical tools to measure and refine the implementation of productive struggle in ESL classrooms.

Figure 7 Created by the author, 2024. Metrics for Assessing the Effectiveness of Productive Struggle Strategies

While productive struggle has proven benefits, implementing it effectively in ESL classrooms presents several challenges that require thoughtful solutions. By understanding these obstacles, educators can better address them through targeted strategies.

Balancing Challenge and Support

One of the most significant challenges lies in balancing the level of challenge with appropriate support. Tatum and Huber (2020) highlight that tasks that are too easy lead to disengagement, whereas overly difficult tasks can result in frustration and a loss of motivation. Teachers often find it difficult to gauge tasks that are challenging enough to foster productive struggle but not so overwhelming that learners disengage.

If tasks are too easy, students lose interest, while overly difficult tasks can lead to frustration (Young et al., 2023). Additionally, poorly implemented productive struggle may lead to cognitive overload, where learners are overwhelmed by the difficulty of tasks. Sweller’s (1994) Cognitive Load Theory explains that excessive demands on working memory can hinder learning, especially if scaffolding is insufficient or removed prematurely. In contrast, Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013) argue that excessive scaffolding, while well-intentioned, can deprive learners of opportunities to build independence, ultimately undermining their ability to persevere through challenges.

To address this issue, formative assessments play a crucial role in helping teachers identify learners’ current proficiency levels. According to Black and Wiliam (2009), formative assessments allow educators to gather actionable data, tailor scaffolding, and adjust task complexity dynamically, ensuring tasks remain achievable yet challenging for students.

Time and Expertise in Instructional Design

Another challenge involves the time and expertise required to design instructional tasks that align with learners’ Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Teachers must carefully assess prior knowledge, design scaffolds, and monitor progress—all of which demand significant preparation and skill.

Warndini, Damayanti, and Amalia (2023) emphasize that scaffolding tasks within the ZPD require deliberate planning to ensure learners are supported effectively as they progress. Flores (2021) underscores the importance of professional development in equipping teachers with the tools and strategies needed to implement productive struggle effectively. Professional learning sessions can provide educators with frameworks for scaffolding, techniques for formative assessment, and models for balancing challenge and support (Gibbons, 2015). Collaborative lesson planning can further alleviate the burden by enabling teachers to share expertise and co-design tasks that align with learners’ needs, a strategy proven effective in fostering teacher efficiency and learner progress (Hattie, 2009).

Cultural Challenges

Cultural perceptions of struggle can significantly impact learners’ engagement with productive struggle. In teacher-centered educational systems, students may view struggle as a sign of failure rather than a natural part of the learning process. Toufaha (2024) highlights how learners accustomed to direct instruction often resist the autonomy required for productive struggle. This resistance is particularly prominent in cultures where academic success is equated with immediate correctness.

A case study by Gu (2017) explored how culturally-informed scaffolding strategies were implemented with Chinese ESL learners. Teachers adapted scaffolding approaches to align with cultural norms, providing initial direct support and gradually transitioning to learner autonomy. By explicitly discussing the value of struggle and normalizing persistence, teachers were able to shift students’ perceptions of productive struggle as a positive learning experience. Similarly, Chuang et al. (2020) emphasize that culturally responsive scaffolding—such as validating students’ effort and progress—can reduce resistance and encourage persistence. These findings highlight the need for teachers to account for learners' educational backgrounds and cultural expectations when designing scaffolded tasks.

Technological Limitations and Over-Reliance 

While tools like computer adaptive technology (CAT) platforms are praised for their ability to dynamically adjust task difficulty based on learner proficiency, they are not without limitations. Sireci and Suárez-Álvarez (2024) highlight that such platforms often fail to address learners' emotional and cultural contexts, which can significantly influence engagement and persistence. For instance, a struggling ESL learner from a collectivist culture may perceive repeated algorithmic corrections as failure rather than support, negatively affecting motivation and confidence (Li, 2012).

Additionally, over-reliance on technology risks diminishing the irreplaceable role of human interaction in learning. Yang et al. (2019) argue that teacher feedback offers both cognitive and emotional scaffolding—something algorithms cannot replicate effectively. However, critics of teacher-led approaches, such as Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013), suggest that teachers may inadvertently provide too much support, preventing learners from grappling with productive struggle independently.

This raises an important question: How can educators strike a balance between leveraging technology for scalability and ensuring meaningful teacher-student interactions for personalized support? Addressing these concerns requires a hybrid approach. While CAT platforms can streamline formative assessments and personalize task complexity, their implementation should be complemented by regular teacher feedback to address learners’ affective needs. Professional development for teachers to integrate these tools thoughtfully could mitigate some of these limitations while maximizing their potential to enhance productive struggle.

While productive struggle offers significant benefits, educators must carefully calibrate scaffolding to avoid pitfalls such as cognitive overload or over-reliance on support. Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013) caution that excessive scaffolding can inhibit learner independence, underscoring the need for a balanced, dynamic approach to fostering resilience and autonomy.

At the same time, empirical evidence and practical applications affirm the transformative potential of productive struggle in ESL classrooms. Research consistently demonstrates that learners who engage with challenging tasks—supported by targeted scaffolding—develop deeper linguistic skills, critical thinking abilities, and long-term resilience. Concrete strategies, such as task-based learning, collaborative writing activities, and adaptive technologies, provide educators with tools to implement productive struggle effectively while balancing challenge and support.

However, successful implementation requires addressing challenges such as task design, cultural perceptions, and the appropriate use of technology. By prioritizing professional development, dynamic assessments, and supportive classroom environments, educators can overcome these barriers.

For those working in diverse contexts, such as government schools in the UAE, this work offers clear pathways for embedding productive struggle into curriculum design. By thoughtfully integrating these strategies, educators can empower learners to persist through challenges, develop independence, and achieve long-term success in English language acquisition.

Azi, Y. (2020). Scaffolding and the teaching of writing within ZPD: Doing scaffolded writing (a short case study). International Journal of Linguistics, 12(3), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v12i3.14044

Brousseau, G., & Gibel, P. (2005). Didactical handling of students’ responses to tasks that may trigger struggles. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of CERME 4 (pp. 129–136). European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. https://cerme-conference.org

Chand, S. P. (2023). Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21275/sr23630021800

Chuang, H. H., Shih, C. L., & Cheng, M. M. (2020). Teachers' perceptions of culturally responsive teaching in technology-supported learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1834–1849. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjet.12921

Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., Dionne, G. B., & Bewley, W. L. (2012). Using computer-based testing for formative assessment: Effects on young students' mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9259-4

Daily, S. (2021). “Productive struggle” as an effective strategy in elementary math classrooms. International Journal of the Whole Child, 6, 85–95. https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/ijwc/article/view/2154

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Empowering ELLs. (n.d.). Forms of scaffolding. Retrieved December 18, 2024, from https://empoweringells.com/scaffolding-instruction/

Flores, A. M. (2021). The importance of instructional scaffolding in ESL classroom. Nanzan University Repository. https://nanzan-u.repo.nii.ac.jp

Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom instruction on student learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621061

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Kristiana, A. (2015). Development of NCTM standard mathematics learning model with cognitive load theory nuances for vocational school class X. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia, 10(2), 87–99. https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/pancaran/article/view/2181

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017678

Scalise, K. M. (2004). BEAR CAT: Toward a theoretical basis for dynamically driven content in computer-mediated environments [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://search.proquest.com/openview/de28576f2926b0decedf567dea756113/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Shafaei, A., & Rahim, H. A. (2015). Does project-based learning enhance Iranian EFL learners' vocabulary recall and retention? International Journal of Educational Research, 64(1), 52–58. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127235

Sireci, S. G., & Suárez-Álvarez, J. (2024). Evolving educational testing to meet students' needs: Design-in-real-time assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 43(1), 67–78. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emip.12653

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2019). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664.pub2

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

Tatum, M. N., & Huber, T. (2020). Universal ESL scaffolding for the K-12 teacher: A literature review. Research Journal of Education, 6(6), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.32861/rje.66.57.62

Toufaha, S. (2024). The effect of automated error corrective feedback on the improvement of EFL learners' writing and autonomy. Retrieved from https://dspace.univ-ouargla.dz/jspui/handle/123456789/35662.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2017). Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory of learning. In L. J. Couse & S. L. Recchia (Eds.), Theories of early childhood education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641560-1

Warndini, T. R., Damayanti, I., & Amalia, L. (2023). Designed-in scaffolding: Supporting EFL young learners in creating multimodal texts. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan, 12(3), 49501. https://doi.org/10.24114/jalu.v12i3.49501

Yang, Y., Zuo, M., & Wang, W. (2019). A case study of pupils' scaffolding learning experience supported by information technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning (ICDEL '19) (pp. 112–117). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338147.3338164

Yen, C.-H., Chen, I.-C., Lai, S.-C., & Chuang, Y.-R. (2015). An analytics-based approach to managing cognitive load by using log data of learning management systems and footprints of social media. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 231–251.

Young, J., Bevan, D., & Sanders, M. (2023). How productive is the productive struggle? Lessons learned from a scoping review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 11(4), 3364. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3364.