然而，作者也注意到了更多。他们发现专家同级脚手架和同等脚手架的优越性不同，这意味着相对于脚手架的人来说效率更高。在第二语言学习者的理解发展中，脚手架因此被认为是最重要的。作者还批评这是在其他情况下应该有不同解释的东西。例如，他们的结论表明，当学习者在学习能力或听力能力方面处于相同水平时，效果可能没有相对差异。 “如果所有的学习者都处于同一水平的听力理解能力，他们也可以通过互动小组作品互相帮助，提高他们的能力和水平。这意味着EFL教师需要为他们的学习者提供更多的交流机会，并为他们的同伴提供脚手架的帮助“（Safa＆Rozatti，2017，p。456）。这项工作还指出，当涉及第二语言学习者学习发展的脚手架时，同侪教学法更为可取。像Michell＆Sharpe（2005）的工作中介绍的教学脚手架的上下文多模式形式将有助于创建更好的教室指示。 Safa＆Rozatti（2017）提供的脚手架协助与Michell＆Sharpe（2005）的工作进行了分析，实际上揭示了帮助学生发展ZPD的更好机会。
However, the authors also noticed something more. They found the superiority of the expert peer scaffolding and coequal scaffolding was different, meaning there were efficiencies relative to the person doing the scaffolding. In comprehension development for second language learners, scaffolding was hence considered to be of primary importance. The author also critiques this as something that should be interpreted differently in other scenarios. For instance, their conclusion suggests that when learners are at the same level when it comes to their learning capabilities or their listening capabilities, then there might not be relative differences in efficacy. “If all the learners are at the same level of listening comprehension ability, they can also assist each other and improve their ability and proﬁciency level through interactive group works. It implies that EFL teachers need to provide their learners with more opportunities to interact and offer scaffolded assistance to their peers” (Safa & Rozatti, 2017, p. 456). The work also identified that peer-peer didactics were more preferable when it comes to scaffolding for learning development in second language earners. Contextual multimodal form of instructional scaffolding like the one presented in the work of Michell & Sharpe (2005) would help in creating better class room instructions. The scaffolded assistance presented by Safa & Rozatti (2017) when analysed in context with that of Michell & Sharpe (2005) work actually reveals better opportunities for aiding students in ZPD development.