Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback

Language Testing in Asia

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Panahi, Parva ^a   Birjandi, Parviz ^b   Azabdaftari, Behrooz ^a  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Dynamic assessment; Mediation; Scaffolding; Teacher error feedback; ZPD

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042155653     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22290443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2229-0443-3-13     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aljaafreh A, Lantolf J: Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 1994, 78: 465–483. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
2. Anderson JR: Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological review 1982, 89: 369–406.
3. Anton M: A learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 1999, 83: 303–318. 10.1111/0026-7902.00024
4. Bakhtin MM: Discourse in the novel (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). In The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Edited by: Holquist M. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; 1981:259–422.
5. Bates L, Lane J, Lange E: Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle; 1993.
6. Brophy J: Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational research 1981, 51: 5–32. 10.3102/00346543051001005
7. Connors RJ, Lunsford AA: Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication 1993, 44(2):200–223. 10.2307/358839
8. Donato R: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Edited by: Lantolf J, Appel G. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994:33–56.
9. Dorfler T, Golke S, Artlet C: Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation 2009, 35: 77–82. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.005
10. Ferris D: Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Edited by: Hyland K, Hyland F. New York: Cambridge; 2006:81–104.
11. Hartman H: Human learning and instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York; 2002.
12. Hayes JR, Flower L, Shriver KA, Stratman JF, Carey L: Cognitive process in revision. In Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Edited by: Rosenberg S. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1987:176–240.
13. Haywood HC, Tzuriel D: Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education 2002, 77(2):40–63. 10.1207/S15327930PJE7702_5
14. Hyland F, Hyland K: Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 2001, 79(3):255–286.
15. Lalande JF: Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 1982, 66: 140–149. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
16. Lantolf JP, Poehner ME: Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 2004, 1: 49–74. 10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
17. Lantolf JP, Thorne SL: Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
18. Lidz CS: Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford; 1991.
19. Lidz CS, Elliott JG: Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (Vol. 6). Amsterdam: JAI; 2000.
20. Lidz CS, Gindis B: Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Edited by: Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
21. Lillis TM: Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge; 2001.
22. Lyster R: Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2004, 26: 399–432.
23. Minick N: Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In Dynamic assessment: An interactive approach to evaluating learning potential. Edited by: Lidz CS. New York: The Guilford Press; 1987:116–140.
24. Poehner ME: Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvani State University; 2005.
25. Poehner ME, Lantolf JP: Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 2005, 9: 1–33. 10.1191/1362168805lr159ed
26. Sheen Y: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2010, 32: 169–179. 10.1017/S0272263109990489
27. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL: Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
28. Truscott J: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 1996, 46: 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
29. Van Lier L: Interaction in the curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. London: Addison Wesley Longman; 1996.
30. Vygotsky LS: Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.
31. Wells G: Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla’s ‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian modern Language Review 1998., 54(3): Retrieved from http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=cmlr543.html