The Differential Diagnostic Affordances of Interventionist and Interactionist Dynamic Assessment for L2 Argumentative Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.37685Keywords:
Argumentative Writing, Dynamic assessment, Interactionist, InterventionistAbstract
Taking a case study approach, this study investigated the differential potentials of interactionist and interventionist Dynamic Assessment (DA) as diagnostic tools for the investigation of the difficulties faced by five Farsi-speaking learners of English argumentative writing. The study was conducted as part of an EFL academic writing course which aimed to improve learners’ ability to present strong arguments based on a revised version of Toulmin’s model (Qin, 2009). The focus of the study was on the process rather than the product of learning, with the aim of gaining insights into the diagnostic nature of DA to address persistent problems these learners had been shown to have, as confirmed by their instructor. Data were collected via individualized sessions between the mediator and the learners, randomly assigned into interactionist (n=3) and interventionist (n=2) DA groups. Qualitative analysis of transcribed interactions evidenced that interactionist DA could provide more nuanced understandings of the learners’ ZPDs in relation to the components of Toulmin’s model. Suggestions for further research have been made.
References
Ableeva, R. and Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education 18: 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.555330
Alavi, S. M. and Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment 19: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.869446
Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of Proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78: 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Antón, M. (2003). ‘Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners.’ Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, March.
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced language learners. Foreign Language Annals 42 (3): 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x
Antón, M. (2018). Dynamic diagnosis of second language abilities. In J. P. Lantolf, M.E. Poehner, and M. Swain (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development, 310–323. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, and S. M. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 39–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004
Cohen, A., and Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 155–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.015
Da Silva Iddings, A. C. (2014). Understanding the potential in elementary classrooms through dynamic assessment. Language and Sociocultural Theory 1: 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v1i1.49
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17: 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934
Ferris, D. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non–native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English 28: 45–65.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31: 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Research Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 90–108. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hirvela, A. (2013). The role of social relationships in the writing development of multilingual adolescents. In L. C. de Oliveira and T. Silva (Eds), L2 Writing in Secondary Classrooms: Student Experiences, Academic Issues, and Teacher Education, 67–86. New York: Routledge.
Holzman, L. (2010). Without creating ZPDs there is no creativity. In M. C. Connery, V.P. John–Steiner, and Marjanovic-Shane (Eds), Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural Historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the Arts, 27–40. New York: Peter Lang.
Holzman, L. (2018). Zone of proximal development: Mundane and magical. In J.P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, and M. Swain (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development, 42–55. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
Infante, P. and Poehner, M. E. (2019). Realizing the ZPD in second language education: The complementary contributions of dynamic assessment and mediated development. Language and Sociocultural Theory 6: 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38916
Karim, K. and Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing, Language Teaching Research 24: 519–539.
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research 15 (1): 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/practice Divide. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Lantolf, J. P., and Thorne, S., and Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. van Patten and J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 207–226. New York: Routledge.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An Interactive Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential, 116–140. New York, The Guilford Press.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 57: 511–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00427.x
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1: 315–334. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.2
Nassaji, H., and Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: The Effect of random vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles. Language Awareness 9: 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting Second Language Development. Berlin: Springer Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9
Poehner, M. E. (2018). Probing and provoking L2 development: The object of mediation in dynamic assessment and mediated development. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, andM. Swain (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development, 249–265.
Poehner, M., Infante, P., and Takamiya, Y. (2018). Mediational processes in support of learner L2 writing development: Individual, peer, and group contexts. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 17: 112–132.
Poehner, M. E., and Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9: 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., and Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C–DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing 32: 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560390
Qin, J. (2009). The analysis of Toulmin elements and use of sources in Chinese university EFL argumentative writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northern Arizona University, AZ, US.
Qin, J., and Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System 38: 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012
Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., and Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory 2: 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956
Rashidi, N., and Alimorad, Z. (2009). A comparison of English and Persian organization patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL students. JoLIE 2: 131–152. https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2009.2.1.9
Reznitskaya, A., and Anderson, R. C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block and M. Pressley (Eds), Comprehension Instruction, 319–334. New York: Guilford.
Shrestha, P., and Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing 17: 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., and Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System 81: 135–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., and Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156: 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu
Varghese, S., and Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing their case. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90018-2
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 5, Child Psychology. R. W. Rieber (Ed.). New York, Plenum.
Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English 33: 49–83.
Zhu, E. (2001). Performing argumentative writing in English: Difficulties, processes and strategies. TESL Canada 19: 34–50. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i1.918
