The Impact of Scaffolded Interaction in Group-Oriented Classrooms on (Un)Ready EFL Learners’ Grammatical Development: Toward a ZPD-Informed Learnability Hypothesis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Shiraz University

10.22034/elt.2026.70525.2838

Abstract

Processability Theory (PT) and Teachability Hypothesis (TH) hold that that languages develop sequentially and instruction is effective only when it targets X+1 corollary. In contrast, research suggests that collaborative interaction fosters L2 development. However, the extent to which scaffolded collaborative interaction helps (un)ready learners bypass the learning stages remains unknown. To examine this, we selected an experimental group, an unpretested control group, and a pretested control group. We developed a construct-valid test of readiness whose results showed that six learners in the experimental condition, six learners in the unpretested control group, and five learners in the pretested control group were ready for instruction. Dividing the experimental and unpretested control groups into several smaller groups, we selected ready learners as group heads, who were responsible for scaffolding their peers. The pretested control group received deductive instruction. The findings showed that zone of proximal development (ZPD)-sensitive interactive practice accelerated the learning gains of both (un)ready learners and helped them acquire both X+1 and X+2 structures. However, deductive instruction was only effective for ready learners. These findings challenge TH while supporting a ZPD-Informed Learnability Hypothesis. We discuss the implications and highlight areas ripe for future studies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition - contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C, Sorensen, C.K., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning and use. Language Learning Monograph Series. Blackwell.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson.
Dekeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x
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(3), 411–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00048
Egan, K. (1983). Education and psychology: Plato, Piaget, and scientific psychology. Teachers College Press.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008159
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml022
Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability theory on trial. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 40, 47–69. https://ela.enallt.unam.mx/index.php/ela/article/download/649/729
Felix, S. W. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31(1), 87–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01374.x
Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47–81. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.47.15526
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell Publishing.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 180–226). Routledge.
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299–307. http://www.jstor.org/stable/329956
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005143
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013097
Håkansson, G., & Kalnak, N. (2025). A processability theory perspective on morphosyntax in school-age children with developmental language disorder. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2025.2499147
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning, 26(2), 321–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00280.x
Hsu, H. C. (2024). Peer interaction and attention to form in web-based synchronous and asynchronous L2 collaborative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 1602–1631. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2095405
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross‐sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58(1), 185–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00438.x
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Addison-Wesley Longman.
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp. 256–270). Heinle Cengage Learning.
Larsen‐Freeman, D. E. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00264.x
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Liu, G. (1991). Interaction and second language acquisition: A case study of a Chinese child’s acquisition of English as a second language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. La Trobe University.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Newbury House.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x
Mansouri, F. (Ed.). (2007). Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
Nishitani, A. (2012).  A hierarchy of grammatical difficulty for Japanese EFL learners: Multiple choice items and processability theory. [Doctoral dissertation]. Temple University. http://digital.library.temple.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p245801coll10/id/176422
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/8.1.3
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS‐NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00401.x
Pica, T., Doughty, C. J., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 72(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.72.01pic
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015
Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 83–113. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.10.2.07pie
Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. In G. Kasper (Ed.) AILA Review 5: Classroom research (pp. 40–72). Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory (Vol. 15). John Benjamins. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability theory - Manfred Pienemann - Google Books
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 61–85). John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. & Lenzing, A. (2020). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten, G. Keating & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, (3rd ed.) (pp. 162–191). Routledge.
Poehner, M. E., & Leontjev, D. (2023). Peer interaction, mediation, and a view of teachers as creators of learner L2 development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12444
Shin, S. J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Bilingual language acquisition by Korean schoolchildren in New York City. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728999000243
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
Tabatabaee, M. S. (2024). Stage-like development of morpho-syntactic structure of Do-SV (O) in Iranian EFL learners’ writing and speaking: A mixed-methods analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.71873/MSLT.2024.1122059
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research—1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00672.x
Tarone, E., & Liu, G. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 107–124). Oxford University Press.
Vahdat, S., Gooniband Shooshtari, Z., & Bordbar, A. (2018). Gender-based investigation of the syntactic development of Iranian EFL learners: A focus on processability theory. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(2), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4636
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Ablex.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Wang, X. (2011). Grammatical development among Chinese L2 learners: From a processability account. Newcastle University, UK.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://sachafund.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/wood_et_al-1976-journal_of_child_psychology_and_psychiatry.pdf
Zabihi, R., & Ghahramanzadeh, B. (2022). Proficiency pairing and engagement with language in L2 peer interaction. System, 105, 102725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102725
Zhang, M. (2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 338–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859911
Zhang, M. (2022). A re-examination of pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities in collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 26(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819890949
Zhang, Y. (2001). Second language acquisition of Chinese grammatical morphemes: A processability perspective. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics