Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Shiraz University
Abstract
This investigation postulates Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) and his related “scaffolding” metaphor as well as Norton’s (2006) principles of sociocultural identity as its theoretical foundation. This research intends to scrutinize the socioculturally-oriented mediational mechanisms utilized in student-student and student-teacher collaborations in an Iranian EFL writing class. Such scrutiny is to reveal the learners’ sociocultural change in behavior, and how their sociocultural identity is scaffolded and developed through collaborative negotiation in writing. For this purpose, Lidz's Rating Scale (1991) was adopted to delve into the sociocultural-identity-conducive interactions produced by 32 sophomores of English Language and Literature at Shiraz University as they collaborated in writing. The analysis of such scaffolding-mediated discourse provides useful insights into the nature of the learners’ sociocultural identity development. Particularly, the results provide evidence that dialogic exchanges through linguistic means on the part of peers and the teacher include some behaviors such as intentionality, joint regard, affective involvement, communicative ratchet, contingent responsivity, intersubjectivity, and L1 use in collaborative writing tasks which play the most significant role in establishing new identities and gaining self-regulation, i.e. developing sociocultural identity.
Keywords
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994).Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories, big or small: why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16, 139-147.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000).Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
Donato, R. (1988).Beyond group: A Psycholinguistic rationale for collectivity in second language learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998).Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and Krashen's "i + 1": Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006).Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research (pp.208-221).New York: The Guilford Press.
Esquinca, A. (2011). Bilingual college writers’ collaborative writing of word problems. Linguistics and Education, 22,150–167.
Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001).Re-conceptualizing scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 1–15.
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
Grossen, B. (1998). Child-directed teaching methods: A discriminatory practice of Western education. On-line at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/cdp.htm
Hayes-Conroy, J., & Vanderbeck, R. (2005). Ecological identity work in higher education: theoretical perspectives and a case study. Ethics, Place and Environment, 8(3), 309-329.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (Guest Eds.)(2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities [Special issue]. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 4-21.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002).The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,343–358.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000).Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp.104-114).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619-632.
Lidz, C. (1991).Practitioner's Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004).Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Arnold.
Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. TESOL in Context, 7, [Special Issue], 22-33.
Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994).Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 506-517.
Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571-587.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.54-66). New York: The Guilford Press.
Psarou M. K., & Zafiropoulos, C. (2004).Scietific Research: Theory and Applications in Social Sciences. Athens: Tipothito, Dardanos.
Rasku-Puttonen H, Etelapelto A, Arvaja M., & Hakkinen P. (2003). Is successful scaffolding an illusion? Shifting patterns of responsibility and control in teacher-student interaction during a long term learning project. Instructional Science, 31, 377-393.
Roberts, J. (2007). Capturing values: a triangulation of academic frameworks, concepts of education and the student experience. Paper presented at the ESD: Graduates as Global Citizens Conference, 10-11 September, Bournemouth University.
Rommetveit, R. (1985).Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Cultural, communication and cognition: Vygotskyan perspectives (pp. 183-204).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samuel, M., & Stephens, D. (2000). Critical dialogues with self: Developing teacher identities and roles—a case study of South African student teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 475–491.
Scarcella, R.C., &Oxford, R.L. (1992).The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1, 7 - 58.
Seliger, H. W. (1983). Learner interaction in the classroom and its effect on language acquisition. In H.W.Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.89-107).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Serres, M. (2004). The Parasite (trans. Lawrence R. Schehr). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Simon, R. I. (1988). For a pedagogy of possibility. In J. Smyth (Ed.), The critical pedagogy networker, (pp. 1-4). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Simon, R. I. (1995). Face to face with alterity: Postmodern Jewish identity and the eros of pedagogy. In J. Gallop (Ed.), Pedagogy: The question of impersonation (pp. 90–105). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Smith, F. (2006).Ourselves: Why we are who we are: A handbook for educators. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Storch, N., & Wigglesowrth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency. In R.Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166-185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storch, N., &Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). London: Multilingual Matters.
Sullivan, P. (1996).Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 115-131). New York: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Toohey, K. (2000) Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Van Lier, L. (1996).Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. Harlow Essex: Longman Group Limited.
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1998). Using L1 to Master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla’s ‘‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.’’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 343–53.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991).Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 173–201
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007).Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48, 362-382.
)