Introduction

The implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has significantly transformed foreign language education over the past decade. Originally developed in European bilingual contexts, CLIL is increasingly adopted in EFL environments where English serves as a medium of instruction for subject content. However, this shift introduces methodological challenges, particularly in the field of reading comprehension. Reading in a CLIL classroom requires learners to simultaneously decode linguistic structures and conceptual subject knowledge. As recent research demonstrates, students often struggle with academic vocabulary, text complexity, and the absence of explicit reading strategy instruction [4]. The dual cognitive demand inherent in CLIL reading frequently results in superficial comprehension and reduced learner confidence. Empirical evidence suggests that scaffolding provides an effective framework for addressing these challenges. Studies conducted in various CLIL and EFL contexts indicate that structured pedagogical mediation enhances reading comprehension, learner autonomy, and critical thinking [2; 3; 5]. Despite growing empirical attention, there remains a need for systematic synthesis of practical scaffolding implementations in CLIL reading contexts.

The present study aims to identify recurring scaffolding strategies across recent research and to construct an integrated pedagogical model for teaching reading in CLIL classrooms.

The concept of scaffolding originates from sociocultural theory, particularly the work of L. S. Vygotsky, who argued that learning occurs within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where learners perform tasks with guided support before achieving independence. In CLIL reading instruction, scaffolding mediates both linguistic and conceptual understanding.

Scaffolding theory, further developed in educational psychology, emphasizes temporary instructional support that is gradually withdrawn as learner competence increases. This principle aligns with the “scaffold–fade” model observed in contemporary reading studies [3].

CLIL pedagogy integrates content and language objectives simultaneously. However, without structured support, learners face excessive cognitive load. The systematic literature review by Maimunsyah et al. identifies vocabulary limitation, inappropriate text difficulty, and lack of explicit strategy instruction as primary obstacles in CLIL reading environments [4]. Therefore, scaffolding must address lexical, structural, and strategic dimensions of reading.

Additionally, the principle of focus on form suggests that attention to linguistic structures can be embedded within meaningful communicative tasks [6]. In CLIL reading, this involves highlighting academic vocabulary, discourse markers, and grammatical patterns without interrupting content comprehension.

This study uses qualitative meta-synthesis to integrate empirical findings between 2023 and 2025 research on scaffolding for reading in CLIL and related EFL contexts. The search was conducted through Google Scholar and available indexed and institutional repositories, with supplementary scanning of reference lists in review papers. Search strings were applied in different combinations, including: “CLIL reading scaffolding,” “scaffolding reading comprehension,” “scaffold–fade reading,” “peer scaffolding reading,” “Kazakhstan CLIL,” and “academic reading CLIL.”

Inclusion criteria were: (a) publication in 2023–2025; (b) empirical design (case study, classroom intervention, quasi-experiment, systematic or scoping review); (c) explicit reference to scaffolding strategies connected to reading comprehension or reading strategy development; (d) CLIL or comparable content-oriented EFL settings. Studies were excluded if scaffolding was mentioned only theoretically without classroom implementation or if reading was not addressed.

The final corpus combined international and Kazakhstan-focused evidence. It included CLIL teacher practice research [1], CLIL scaffolding strategy analysis [2], a reading-focused scaffolding case study [3], a systematic review of CLIL reading [4], an EFL reading scaffolding case study [5], a Kazakhstan scoping review of CLIL research [7], a Kazakhstan study on learners’ attitudes toward reading-strategy scaffolding [8], a Kazakhstan CLIL literacy-focused article [9], a Kazakhstan CLIL-related MA thesis on multilingual agency [10], and a quasi-experimental study comparing teacher vs. peer scaffolding effects on reading and vocabulary [11].

Analytically, thematic coding was used. First, each study was read to extract descriptions of scaffolding practices, their timing (pre/during/post reading), the role of teacher/peers, and reported learning outcomes. Second, recurring codes (e.g., vocabulary pre-teaching, schema activation, guided questioning, peer negotiation, formative feedback ) were grouped into broader themes (stage-based scaffolding, scaffold–fade sequencing, linguistic mediation, social interaction scaffolding). Third, cross-study comparison was used to identify which practices appeared consistently effective and under what contextual conditions.

The meta-synthesis indicates that practical scaffolding in CLIL reading is most effective when it is systematic, explicitly planned, and organised across the reading process. Across the reviewed studies, scaffolding practices cluster into four recurring mechanisms: (1) conceptual and lexical preparation before reading, (2) guided comprehension work during reading, (3) post-reading consolidation and higher-order processing, and (4) gradual fading of support across stages.

Pre-reading mediation consistently emerges as a crucial condition for successful CLIL reading instruction. Teachers typically activate prior knowledge, introduce key vocabulary, and use visual organizers before learners engage with the text [3; 5]. These strategies reduce cognitive overload and create an entry point into subject meaning. Vocabulary mediation is particularly prominent: a systematic review identifies limited lexical knowledge as one of the most persistent barriers in CLIL reading [4]. In Kazakhstan, the need for structured scaffolding is reinforced by national-level implementation realities; a scoping review of CLIL research highlights recurring constraints, including uneven teacher preparation and variability in classroom practice [7]. From the learner perspective, Seitova’s study reports generally positive attitudes toward scaffolded reading strategy instruction, suggesting that structured support increases perceived accessibility and confidence in reading tasks [8]. Together, these findings suggest that explicit pre-teaching of subject-specific terminology, supported by visuals, schema activation questions, and predictive tasks, can strengthen comprehension by linking new content to existing knowledge frameworks.

During-reading scaffolding typically involves guided questioning, think-aloud modelling, structured interaction, and selective attention to language forms. In the case study by Zhang and Singh, instruction followed a scaffold-fade sequence in which intensive teacher guidance gradually shifted toward more independent comprehension [3]. Similarly, Umirzakova and Kadyrova emphasize formative questioning and cognitive prompting as key scaffolds that support inferential reasoning rather than literal recall [2]. Focus-on-form practices are also embedded within meaning-making: teachers highlight grammatical patterns and discourse connectors in ways that support comprehension and academic language development without interrupting content processing [6]. Interaction further functions as a scaffold, as collaborative discussion enables learners to negotiate meaning, clarify misunderstandings, and co-construct interpretations, thereby extending learning through social mediation.

Importantly, the synthesis suggests that structured peer interaction can be not only supportive but, in some contexts, even more effective than teacher-led scaffolding for reading comprehension and vocabulary development. A quasi-experimental study comparing teacher scaffolding and peer scaffolding reports stronger gains for learners engaged in peer scaffolding activities [11]. This finding is especially relevant in CLIL settings where sustained teacher talk may be cognitively demanding; peer interaction can offer lower-stakes opportunities for negotiation of meaning and collaborative problem-solving.

Post-reading scaffolding supports the shift from basic comprehension to critical engagement. Reflective tasks, structured summaries, and guided discussions promote higher-order thinking and help consolidate understanding [3]. Formative assessment and feedback encourage self-monitoring and metacognitive awareness, preparing learners for more independent reading performance over time [2]. Across successful implementations, a key condition is systematic scaffold withdrawal: as learners gain confidence, support is gradually reduced, enabling autonomous comprehension.

Findings from Kazakhstan-oriented CLIL research further broaden the interpretation of scaffolding beyond a set of teacher techniques to include multilingual classroom realities. The Nazarbayev University thesis on multilingual student agency frames learners as active participants who strategically mobilize linguistic resources, suggesting that scaffolding may also involve enabling responsible language choice and supporting agency rather than simply simplifying tasks [10]. Similarly, a Kazakhstan study on CLIL and science literacy under curriculum reform highlights the need for carefully designed methodological support and teacher awareness to achieve literacy goals [9]. These sources suggest that scaffolding in CLIL reading should be understood as both cognitive-linguistic support and a culturally situated practice shaped by policy, teacher preparation, and multilingual norms.

On the basis of these converging findings, effective CLIL reading instruction can be described as a structured progression: conceptual preparation through vocabulary and schema activation reduces initial cognitive load; linguistic and strategic mediation during reading supports meaning-making and academic language; post-reading tasks consolidate understanding and promote higher-order thinking; and gradual release of responsibility ensures the development of independent academic reading skills. In this respect, the scaffold-fade principal functions as a central structural mechanism rather than occasional assistance [3].

The findings of the meta-analysis suggest that scaffolding functions as a central pedagogical mechanism in CLIL reading instruction. By structuring reading activities across pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading stages, scaffolding helps learners manage the dual cognitive demands of processing subject content and foreign-language input simultaneously. Lexical mediation and schema activation appear to be essential in reducing initial comprehension barriers, while guided questioning and collaborative interaction support deeper engagement with textual meaning.

These findings align with sociocultural perspectives on learning, which emphasize that knowledge is constructed through guided participation and gradual transfer of responsibility. Within CLIL reading contexts, scaffolding enables teachers to mediate both conceptual and linguistic understanding, allowing learners to move from assisted performance toward greater autonomy. The scaffold–fade principle therefore emerges as a key structural feature of effective CLIL pedagogy.

At the same time, the analysis also highlights several contextual factors that may influence the effectiveness of scaffolding practices. One significant factor is teacher preparedness. Research indicates that educators often adapt CLIL methodologies according to local institutional constraints and their own methodological expertise [1]. Without adequate training in scaffolding techniques, instructional support may become inconsistent or overly directive, potentially limiting learners’ opportunities to develop independent reading strategies.

Cultural and educational contexts also shape how scaffolding functions in practice. In educational environments where teacher-centered instruction traditionally dominates, learners may initially demonstrate limited engagement with collaborative meaning negotiation or peer interaction. Conversely, in highly student-centered learning cultures, teachers may rely more heavily on peer scaffolding and discussion-based reading activities. These differences suggest that scaffolding should not be treated as a uniform set of techniques but rather as a flexible pedagogical framework that must be adapted to specific classroom contexts.

Another important consideration concerns learner age and developmental stage. Younger learners often benefit from concrete and visually supported scaffolds, such as graphic organizers or vocabulary glosses, whereas older learners may require more strategic and metacognitive scaffolds that encourage critical reading and independent reasoning. As a result, effective scaffolding design must consider learners’ cognitive maturity as well as their linguistic proficiency.

Finally, the findings indicate that excessive or prolonged scaffolding may unintentionally reduce learner autonomy. If support is not gradually withdrawn, students may become dependent on teacher mediation rather than developing independent reading strategies. The scaffold–fade principle is therefore essential to ensure that scaffolding remains a temporary form of instructional support rather than a permanent feature of classroom interaction.

This meta-analysis examined recent research on scaffolding strategies used to support reading comprehension in CLIL and related EFL contexts. The synthesis of empirical studies demonstrates that structured scaffolding practices significantly enhance learners’ ability to process academic texts in a second language. In particular, effective CLIL reading instruction involves systematic support before, during, and after reading activities, including vocabulary mediation, guided comprehension strategies, collaborative interaction, and formative feedback.

At the same time, the analysis indicates that scaffolding should not be viewed as a universally applicable instructional technique independent of context. Its effectiveness is influenced by multiple factors, including teacher training, classroom culture, and learner characteristics. Educational systems that provide sustained professional development for CLIL teachers are therefore more likely to implement scaffolding practices effectively.

Furthermore, while scaffolding can improve comprehension and support academic language development, it must be applied carefully to avoid overdependence on instructional support. Gradual release of responsibility remains essential for fostering independent reading competence.

Future research should continue to explore scaffolding practices across diverse CLIL environments and educational levels. Longitudinal studies may provide deeper insight into how scaffolding contributes to the long-term development of academic reading skills. Additionally, emerging digital learning environments offer promising opportunities for technology-mediated scaffolding that may further support comprehension in multilingual classrooms.

References:

1. Lap T. Q., Vy P. N. T., Hanh N. T. M., et al. Toward the Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Shift: What are EFL Teachers’ Understandings, Practices, and Needs? // SAGE Open. 2025. July–September. P. 1–17.
2. Umirzakova Z. A., Kadyrova G. R. Scaffolding Strategy in the Context of CLIL in Teaching the Russian Language // Iasaui universitetinin habarshysy. 2025. No. 1 (135). P. 332–348.
3. Zhang H., Singh C. S. A Case Study of Exploring Scaffolding Instruction on Reading Comprehension of English as a Foreign Language Learners // International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 2025. Vol. 14, No. 2. P. 1624–1643.
4. Maimunsyah, Rahmat A., Nuruddin. CLIL in Reading Comprehension Learning: A Systematic Literature Review // TPM. 2025. Vol. 32, No. S6. P. 1382–1388.
5. Suryani I., Dewi U., Chuma M. M. Scaffolding Strategies to Support English Language Learning in Reading Comprehension: A Case Study // Child Education Journal. 2023. Vol. 5, No. 1. P. 24–35.
6. Pawlak M. An Overview of Focus on Form in Language Teaching // Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts. 2007. P. 5–15.
7. Satayev M., Varis S., Ashirbayev Y., Koshanova Z., Balta N. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Kazakhstan: A Scoping Review // Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2024. (Online first / journal article).
8. Seitova M. English Learners’ Attitudes towards Developing Reading Strategies through Scaffolding // Journal of Educational Sciences (Bulletin of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University). 2023. Vol. 76, No. 3. (PDF).
9. Zhetpisbayeva B., et al. CLIL’s Potential for Developing Science Literacy among High School Students in the Context of the Updated Secondary Education Curriculum in Kazakhstan // Vesti nepreryvnogo obrazovaniya “Örleu”. 2025. No. 3(50). (PDF).
10. Multilingual Student Agency in one CLIL School: Evidence from Post-Soviet Kazakhstan: Master’s Thesis. Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education. 2025. (Open Access PDF).
11. Munir S., Herdiana. The Effect of Teacher Scaffolding and Peer-Scaffolding on Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Ability // Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia. 2023. (Quasi-experimental study)