Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD

Abstract

The Zone of Proximal Development has been one of the most misunderstood features of Sociocultural Theory. It has been inappropriately equated with Krashen’s i+1 and with the concept of ‘scaffolding’. Based on an empirical study where learners seemed to require the same degree of explicit mediation at two different points in time, Erlam, et al. (2013) have questioned Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (1994) regulatory scale and have instead supported a one-size-fits-all use of explicit mediation. This article provides a theoretical and empirical counter argument to Erlam, et al.’s (2013) proposal. Given Vygotsky’s (1987) claim that development is revolutionary, on theoretical grounds alone, we would not expect that because at time 1 a learner required explicit mediation at time 2 that same learner would require less explicit (or more implicit) mediation to recognize and correct use of an inappropriate L2 feature. We also present empirical evidence from a close analysis of Aljaafreh’s (1992) dissertation that supplements the data considered in Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995), which showed that even when mediation regresses from more implicit to more explicit levels on the regulatory scale, it does not regress to the beginning of the process where mediation is maximally explicit. Progress, overall, is forward, even if it requires some backtracking.

To correct or to cooperate: Mediational processes and L2 development

“…They explain that examining learner trajectories from session to session revealed that an individual might require less support in one session only to struggle more in the next before showing substantial improvement in yet a third session. According to Lantolf et al (2016), such a trajectory is in line with Vygotsky’s (1987) position that development is not a smooth transition from one stage to the next but rather a revolutionary process.…”

“…Interestingly, in a response to Erlam et al, Lantolf, Kurtz and Kisselev (2016) re-examined the entire data set from which Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (1994) study had drawn. Lantolf et al found that while there was an overall trend toward less reliance on a mediator over the course of their intervention program, analysis of individual sessions revealed that this was far from a linear process.…”

Developing metaphorical awareness and competence in Chinese as a foreign language through concept‐based instruction

“…However, he gradually became more attentive to the conceptual meanings as he made mistakes in the fill‐in‐the‐blanks exercise due to his lack of understanding of the concepts. David's developmental path implies that development is spiral rather than linear (Arievitch & Haenen, 2005; Lantolf, Kurtz, & Kisselev, 2016) as his use of past knowledge and experience may not always pave the path for immediate improvement and development. Thus, to David, more mediation was needed, and a concept‐based intervention seems particularly necessary, especially for FL metaphors.…”

Expert-novice interaction as the basis for L2 developmental activity

“…Broadly speaking, research on expert-novice interactions in the ZPD can be discussed in relation to two complementary approaches: (i) Work which can be described as interventionist since it aims primarily at operationalising interaction and assistance in order to design conditions and environments which can be potentially conducive to the emergence of ZPDs, (e.g., Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994;Nassaji and Swain, 2000;Negueruela-Azarola, García and Buescher, 2015;Poehner, 2008;Poehner and Infante, 2015;van Compernolle, 2011) and (ii) exploratory studies, such as the present one, whose primary aims are to understand in more detail how it is that expertise is co-constructed and how L2 developmental opportunities are emergent in situated activity (e.g., Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2008;Lantolf, Kurtz, and Kissalev, 2016;McCafferty, 2002;Mondada and Doehler, 2004;Steinbach-Koehler and Thorne, 2011;van Compernolle, 2016).…”

“…It has also resulted in a deeper understanding of the nuances of interaction that are, ultimately, the pillars for L2 development. The seminal study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), and its recent complement (Lantolf et al, 2016), underline the essence of assistance in the ZPD as gradual (i.e., explicit-implicit continuum) and, importantly, contingent in interaction. Furthermore, these studies foreground the nonlinear character of L2 development (Vygotsky, 1978); that is, an understanding of development as a dialectic between language performance and regulatory responsiveness (reciprocity) which necessarily results in shifts in the quality and quantity of mediation afforded in the ZPD (see also Lantolf and Poehner, 2011).…”