From Low-Proficiency Loops to Hybrid Scaffolding: Adolescent EFL Learners' Perceptions of Peer-Mediated Vocabulary Learning

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32332/tapis.v10i2.14133

Keywords:

EFL vocabulary learning, hybrid scaffolding, low-proficiency loops, peer interaction, student perception

Abstract

Lexical acquisition continues to pose a recurring obstacle for Indonesian EFL learners, largely owing to the scarcity of authentic English exposure beyond the classroom setting. Although peer interaction has been widely regarded as a pedagogically viable alternative, relatively few studies have examined how learners personally construct and interpret meaning from such exchanges within structured vocabulary learning activities. This study adopts a descriptive qualitative approach to examine senior high school students’ perceptions toward peer interaction in the context of English vocabulary learning. Employing purposive sampling, three tenth-grade students representing distinct proficiency levels were recruited as focal participants at a public senior high school in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Data collection relied on semi-structured interviews and non-participatory classroom observations, with the resulting data analyzed through Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis procedure. Four overarching themes emerged from the analysis: (1) peer interaction fosters a psychologically safe learning environment that effectively reduces students’ affective filters; (2) collaborative engagement in shared tasks promotes bidirectional lexical retention among participants; (3) proficiency-homogeneous groupings, particularly among lower-ability learners, generate communicative stagnation commonly referred to as a “low-proficiency loops”; and (4) contemporary adolescent learners strategically draw upon digital tools as part of a “hybrid scaffolding” resource to compensate for the limitations inherent in human-to-human interaction. Collectively, these findings underscore that the success of peer-mediated vocabulary learning is substantially dependent on deliberate instructional grouping decisions and the thoughtful incorporation of technology into the learning process.

References

Astuti, P., & Barratt, L. (2021). “She Taught Me Words”: The Availability of Vocabulary Help in EFL Classrooms during Cooperative Learning’s Peer Interaction. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34567

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999

Dong, Y., Hu, J., Wu, X., Zheng, H., & Peng, X. (2018). The evidence of different learning environment learning effects on vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01914

Fikry, M. A., & Inderawati, R. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Peer Interaction on the English Speaking Proficiency of the 2nd Semester Students of English Education Study Program at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 8(3), 13705–13710. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i3-45

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

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3

Noroozi, H. (2016). The effect of peer interaction on Iranian EFL learners’ self-efficacy in vocabulary learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1804–1812. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.13

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Taufan, A. (2024). Pemanfaatan Teknologi Digital dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di Era Modern. Multidisciplinary Journal of Systemic and Innovative Research (MJSIS), 1(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.59014/mjsis.v1i3.123

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

Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.

Zuhairi, A., & Mistar, J. (2023). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Mastery by Indonesian EFL Learners. World Journal of English Language, 13(8), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n8p453

Downloads

Published

2026-07-09