Abstract
This study examined whether instructional scaffolding improves critical-analytical abilities among non-native English literature undergraduates relative to traditional lecture-based teaching. In a within-subjects quasi-experimental design, 101 undergraduates across four sections were taught a poetry unit using scaffolding (Unit 1) and a drama unit using traditional instruction (Unit 2). Students scored significantly higher on the Unit 2 exam than the Unit 1 exam (
n
= 89; M = 11.88 vs. 10.83/15; t(88) = −3.78,
p
< .001, d = 0.40), and forced-choice comparisons showed a small, consistent preference for the traditional method; however, because unit order and literary genre were not counterbalanced across sections, this difference cannot be attributed to teaching method alone. Scaffolding activities were rated positively at the activity level despite this pattern. A secondary finding — that group-based scaffolding carried a real implementation cost from uneven group participation — offers actionable guidance independent of this limitation. These results should be read as evidence about scaffolding's implementation under authentic classroom conditions rather than as a causal test of its effectiveness; they motivate a counterbalanced follow-up study and identify specific logistical factors to manage in EFL literature classrooms.