To correct or to cooperate: Mediational processes and L2 development

Abstract

The present article argues for a conceptual distinction between corrective feedback and mediation that emphasizes the status of the latter not as an instructional practice but as a defining feature of human psychology (Vygotsky, 1987) that has direct implications for how instruction might be approached. Specifically, Sociocultural Theory (SCT) posits that humans are always and everywhere mediated, as individuals draw upon meanings and ways of thinking they have already internalized as well as those that are available in their immediate environment to regulate their actions. With regard to second language (L2) education, rather than exclusively focusing on learner independent performance or whether learners improve following application of a particular corrective feedback strategy, a view of learner performance as a mediated process draws attention to changes – either over the course of an activity or from one activity to the next – to the degree of guidance learners require and the ways in which they respond to or negotiate that support. This mediation process, the changes that may be observed, and how these may be interpreted vis-à-vis learner development is illustrated with examples taken from two recent Dynamic Assessment (DA) studies involving Estonian learners of L2 English. The first study focuses upon one-to-one dialogic interaction in an individualized DA program while the second study reports the implementation of a computerized DA procedure (n = 25). Together, they underscore how the goal of promoting learner L2 development through instruction may be advanced when mediational processes are taken into account and learner developmental trajectories are identified. Implications of mediational processes for future work interested in corrective feedback are discussed.

Keywords

corrective feedback Dynamic Assessment mediation Sociocultural Theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ableeva

(2010). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

Aljaafreh

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.

Corder

H.P.

(1967/1981). The significance of learners’ errors. Reprinted in: Corder, S.P., Error analysis and interlanguage (pp. 5–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Da Silva Iddings

A.C

. (2014). Understanding the potential in elementary classrooms through Dynamic Assessment. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 1, 49–73.

Davin

K.J.

Herazo

J.D.

Sagre

(2016). Learning to mediate: Teacher appropriation of Dynamic Assessment. Language Teaching Research, 21, 632–651.

Doughty

Williams

(1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C

Doughty

Williams

(Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis

(2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In Nassaji

Kartchava

(Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.

Ellis

Loewen

Erlam

(2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.

Erlam

Ellis

Batstone

(2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41, 557–268.

10.

Feuerstein

R.S.

Falik

L.H.

(2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated learning and the brain’s capacity for change. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

11.

Haywood

H.C.

Lidz

C.S.

(2007). Dynamic Assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Lantolf

J.P.

Poehner

M.E.

(2011). Dynamic Assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teachers guide. Second edition. University Park, PA: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research, The Pennsylvania State University.

13.

Lantolf

J.P.

Poehner

M.E.

(2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and Dynamic Assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 141–157.

14.

Lantolf

J.P.

Kurtz

Kisselev

(2016) Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3, 153–171.

15.

Leontjev

(2016). ICAnDoiT: The impact of computerized adaptive corrective feedback on L2 English learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Humanities, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/49346 (accessed June 2018).

16.

Leung

(2007). Dynamic Assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 257–278.

17.

Levi

(2017). Developing L2 oral language proficiency using Dynamic Assessment within a large-scale testing context. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 4, 77–100.

18.

Lidz

C.S.

(1991). Practitioner’s guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford.

19.

Lightbown

P.M.

Spada

(1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

20.

Long

M.H.

Inagaki

Ortega

(1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.

21.

Luria

A.R.

(1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A Journal of Human Behavior, 31, 1–16.

22.

Nassaji

Kartchava

(2017). Introduction. In: H

Nassaji

Kartchava

(Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. ix–xv). New York: Routledge.

23.

Nassaji

Swain

(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, 34–51.

24.

Poehner

M.E.

(2008a). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in Dynamic Assessment. In J.P.

Lantolf

Poehner

M.E.

(Eds.) Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33–56). London: Equinox.

25.

Poehner

M.E.

(2008b). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.

26.

Poehner

M.E.

(2009). Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471–491.

27.

Poehner

M.E.

(2018). Probing and provoking L2 development: The object of mediation in Dynamic Assessment and mediated development. In Lantolf

J.P.

Poehner

M.E.

Swain

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Sociocultural Theory and second language acquisition (Chapter 16). London: Routledge.

28.

Poehner

M.E.

Lantolf

J.P.

(2005). Dynamic Assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 1–33.

29.

Poehner

M.E.

Zhang

(2015). Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32, 337–357.

30.

Vygotsky

L.S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31.

Vygotsky

L.S.

(1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 1: Problems of general psychology, including the volume thinking and speech. Rieber

R.W.

Carton

A.S

. (Eds.). New York: Plenum.

32.

Vygotsky

L.S.

(1998). The problem of age. In: Rieber

R.W.

(Ed.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 5: Child psychology (pp. 187–206). New York: Plenum.