Volume 4, Issue 1 (March 2022)
IEEPJ 2022, 4(1): 156-177 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Soozandehfar S M A, Souzandehfar M. (2022). A Socioculturally Microgenetic Scrutiny on the Mediational Role of Teacher/Peer Scaffolding via Dialogic Collaboration in EFL Speaking Development. IEEPJ. 4(1), 156-177. doi:10.52547/ieepj.4.1.156
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-401-en.html
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-401-en.html
1- University of Hormozgan, Bandar Abbas, Iran , soozandehfar@yahoo.com
2- Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of Translation Studies, Jahrom University, Jahrom, Iran
2- Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of Translation Studies, Jahrom University, Jahrom, Iran
Abstract: (997 Views)
This study draws primarily on ZPD and concept of mediation (a key element in the sociocultural theory) to analyze the mediational talk in speaking group-works. The authors present an analysis of how EFL learners' speaking skill is socioculturally mediated and developed through teacher-student and student-student collaborative interactions. Situated micro genesis was used as a tool for analyzing the interactions generated between the participants during a dialog making task. The results showed the characteristics of a dialogic communication among the learners as they took part in diverse conversation-making tasks collaboratively. Consequently, the analysis of the communicative discourse of the EFL speaking tasks was indicative of precious insights into the nature of the peer-peer and student-teacher interactions as well as their pivotal contributions to scaffolding the EFL learners' speaking skill in different forms. The findings provide worthwhile evidence substantiating that dialogic exchanges in collaborative tasks are crucial as a mediationally facilitative activity conducive to the improvement of second language speaking ability. Finally, the study proposes some constructive implications for EFL instructors encouraging the integration of collaborative tasks in their speaking classes.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Psychology
Received: 2021/10/8 | Accepted: 2021/11/15 | Published: 2022/03/1
Received: 2021/10/8 | Accepted: 2021/11/15 | Published: 2022/03/1
References
1. 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(4), 465-483. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x]
2. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342. [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314]
3. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio‐cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247. [DOI:10.1111/0026-7902.00018]
4. Bakhtin, M. (1986), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Eds. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, Trans. Vern Mcgee, University of Texas Press.
5. Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 262-274. [DOI:10.2307/344508]
6. Brown, D. (2001). Breathing life into history: using role-playing to engage students. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 18(3), 4-8.
7. Budiartha, C. I. W. E., & Vanessa, A. . (2021). Process approach and collaborative learning analysis on students' academic writing. ELTR Journal, 5(1), 19-37. [DOI:10.37147/eltr.v5i1.89]
8. Bunt, H. (2011). The semantics of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics.
9. Caelen, J. (2003). Stratégies de dialogue. In Conférence MFI (Vol. 3, pp. 20-22).
10. Coulthard, M., Cotterill, J., & Rock, F. (Eds.). (2017). Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue: Selected Papers from the 7th IADA Conference, Birmingham (Vol. 22). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
11. Davidson, J. (1993), Bakhtin as a Theory of Reading, Technical report, Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illions.
12. De Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. [DOI:10.1111/0026-7902.00052]
13. DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633. [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.53.4.609]
14. Donato, R. & Lantolf, J. P. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 1, 83-98.
15. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4314.
16. Ford, P., Johnston, B., Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Social work education and criticality: Some thoughts from research. Social Work Education, 23(2), 185-198. [DOI:10.1080/0261547042000209198]
17. Grossen, M. (2010). Interaction analysis and psychology: A dialogical perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(1), 1-22. [DOI:10.1007/s12124-009-9108-9]
18. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12.
19. Ibrahim Zakarneh, B., Rajeh Alsalhi, N., Raouf Abdulla Bin Talab, A., M. Mansour, H., & Mohd J Mahmoud, M. (2021). Social Interactions as a Barrier to Second Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 10(2), 145-157. [DOI:10.18488/journal.23.2021.102.145.157]
20. Kessler, G. and Bikowski, D. (2010), "Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23 (1), 41-58. [DOI:10.1080/09588220903467335]
21. Khanahmadi, F., & Sarkhosh, M. (2018). Teacher-vs. Peer-mediated Learning of Grammar through Dynamic Assessment: A Sociocultural Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 207-222. [DOI:10.12973/iji.2018.11414a]
22. Kushnіr, L., & Mykhalchuk, N. (2021).The Characteristics of foreign Monologue. Problems of Modern Foreign Philology, 145-149.
23. Ladousse, G. P. (2004). Role play teaching. Oxford University Press.
24. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78, No. 4). Oxford University Press.
25. Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619-632. [DOI:10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1]
26. Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. (2002). I'd rather switch than fight": An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language classroom. Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives, 175-196.
27. Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72.
28. Li, J., Zhang, M., Li, Y., Huang, F. & Shao, W. (2021). Predicting Students' Attitudes Toward Collaboration: Evidence From Structural Equation Model Trees and Forests. Front. Psychol. 12:604291. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604291]
29. Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. Guilford Press.
30. Lim, J., Hall, B. M., Jeong, A. C., & Freed, S. (2017). Intersubjectivity and discussion characteristics in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(1), 29-44.
31. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605-655. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x]
32. Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for Change in Literacy Education: A Guide to Professional Development. Heinemann.
33. Mandala, S. (2017). Talk in the Mind: Scripted Dialogues and Mental Scripts. In Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue (pp. 357-370). Max Niemeyer Verlag. [DOI:10.1515/9783110941265-030]
34. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, culture, and activity, 3(1), 25-45. [DOI:10.1207/s15327884mca0301_4]
35. Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36. 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. [DOI:10.1080/09658410008667135]
37. Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90010-8]
38. Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 506-517. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05518.x]
39. Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05510.x]
40. Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 571-587. [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.002]
41. Ratner, N., & Bruner, J. (1978). Games, social exchange and the acquisition of language. Journal of Child language, 5(3), 391-401. [DOI:10.1017/S0305000900002063]
42. Razaghi, M., Bagheri, M. S., & Yamini, M. (2019). The Impact of Cognitive Scaffolding on Iranian EFL Learners' Speaking Skill. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 95-112. [DOI:10.29333/iji.2019.1247a]
43. Rojas, M. A., & Villafuerte, J. (2018). The influence of implementing role-play as an educational technique on EFL speaking development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(7), 726-732. [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0807.02]
44. Saada-Robert, M. (2017) From individual to didactic microgenesis: Studies on situated knowledge transformations. In After Piaget (pp. 187-205). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315082899-11]
45. Saada-Robert, M. & Balslev, K. (2006).The microgeneses located:Units and methods of inductive-deductive analysis. Qualitative Research, 26(2), 85-109. [DOI:10.7202/1085373ar]
46. Sætra, H. S. (2021). Using Padlet to Enable Online Collaborative Mediation and Scaffolding in a Statistics Course. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 219. [DOI:10.3390/educsci11050219]
47. Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom.TESL-EJ 1 (1)3-5.
48. Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational dynamics, 22(2), 40-52. [DOI:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90052-3]
49. Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky's sociocultural approach for teachers' professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1252177. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177]
50. Soozandehfar, S. (2020). Accounting for Change in Critical Thinking Components Mediated by Differential Effects of Paper-based vs. Web-assisted Feedback in Writing. Applied Research on English Language, 9(3), 365-381.
51. Souzandehfar, M., Soozandehfar, S. (2019). Authenticity of "Language Town" as an Innovation in Assessing Learners' Speaking Ability: Moving towards a Virtual Language Town (VLT). Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 11(24), 289-302.
52. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language learning, 52(1), 119-158. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9922.00179]
53. Su, F., & Zou, D. (2020). Technology-enhanced collaborative language learning: theoretical foundations, technologies, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-35. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2020.1831545]
54. Sunah, O. H. (2017). Dialogical exchange class using movies for mutual understanding between a Korean and a Japanese university. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(3), 379-390. [DOI:10.1007/s12124-017-9392-8]
55. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. [DOI:10.1093/applin/16.3.371]
56. 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x]
57. Tajeddin, Z. and Alizadeh, I. (2015). Monologic vs. dialogic assessment of speech act performance: Role of nonnative L2 teacher's professional experience on their rating criteria, Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 3-27.
58. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511840005]
59. Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Blackwell Publishing.
60. Van Lier, L. V. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7(2-3), 128-145. [DOI:10.1080/09658419808667105]
61. Vanderveken, D. (2001). Illocutionary logic and discourse typology. Revue internationale de philosophie, (2), 243-255.
62. Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6]
63. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41.
64. Vygotsky, L. S., van der Veer, R. E., Valsiner, J. E., & Prout, T. T. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Basil Blackwell.
65. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. [DOI:10.1177/136216880607074599]
66. Weigand, E. (2017). Discourse, conversation, dialogue. In Concepts of dialogue (pp. 49-76). Max Niemeyer. [DOI:10.1515/9783111332062-005]
67. 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x]
68. Yelland, N. & Masters, J. (2005). Rethinking Scaffolding in the Information Age. Computers and Education, 48 (3). pp. 362-382. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.010]
69. Yelland, N. (2005). Critical issues in early childhood education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
70. Zakarneh, B. I., Alsalhi, N. R., Talab, A. R. A. B., Mansour, H. M., & Mahmoud, M. M. J. (2021). Social interactions as a barrier to second language learning: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 10(2), 145-157. [DOI:10.18488/journal.23.2021.102.145.157]
71. Zubizarreta, L. (2017). Action Research to improve speaking skills in Official Tourist Guide students at Instituto Superior Tecnológico ESDIT Arequipa- Peru (Tesis de Maestría en Educación con Mención en Enseñanza de Inglés como Lengua Extranjera). Universidad de Piura. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación. Piura, Perú.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
