Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD

Why levels of mediation matter

James Lantolf, Lindsey Kurtz, Olesya Kisselev

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)153-171
Number of pages19
JournalLanguage and Sociocultural Theory
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

mediation
earning a doctorate
supplement
evidence
time

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cultural Studies

Cite this

Lantolf, James ; Kurtz, Lindsey ; Kisselev, Olesya. / Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD : Why levels of mediation matter. In: Language and Sociocultural Theory. 2016 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 153-171.
@article{7801e619b6af44459a7108dce48d9e05,
title = "Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter",
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.",
author = "James Lantolf and Lindsey Kurtz and Olesya Kisselev",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1558/lst.v3i2.32867",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "153--171",
journal = "Language and Sociocultural Theory",
issn = "2051-9699",
publisher = "Equinox Publishing Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD : Why levels of mediation matter. / Lantolf, James; Kurtz, Lindsey; Kisselev, Olesya.

In: Language and Sociocultural Theory, Vol. 3, No. 2, 01.01.2016, p. 153-171.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD

T2 - Why levels of mediation matter

AU - Lantolf, James

AU - Kurtz, Lindsey

AU - Kisselev, Olesya

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040834000&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040834000&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1558/lst.v3i2.32867

DO - 10.1558/lst.v3i2.32867

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 153

EP - 171

JO - Language and Sociocultural Theory

JF - Language and Sociocultural Theory

SN - 2051-9699

IS - 2

ER -