Comparative Study of Measurement and Incorporation of ZPD Scenarios in Developing EFL Learners' Writing

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
S. Nazerian 1
G. Abbasian 2
A. Mohseni 3
1 PhD in English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of English, Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of English, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
10.29252/LRR.12.1.15
Abstract
Despite growing interest in the studies on ZPD, its operation in the forms of individualized and group-wide has been controversial. To cast some empirical light on the issue, this study was designed to quantitatively and comparatively study the applicability of the two scenarios of ZPD-based instructions to the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners in terms of learners' types (low vs. high scorers). To this end, 118 EFL learners identified as homogeneous based on TOEFL ITP test were randomly assigned into two equal experimental groups (individualized and group-wide ZPD-based) which respectively received compatible instructions utilizing individual and whole-class scaffolding techniques. The treatments were allocated to the groups in a random manner within homogeneous blocks. Prior to and after the treatments, three tests (two writing tests and one ZPD test) were administered to measure both groups’ writing accuracy and their ZPD levels. A ZPD test was also administered in the mid of treatments. Results revealed that I-ZPD-based instruction is constructive to the low scorers, and GW-ZPD-based instruction is not constructive to both low and high scorers. The findings pointed to the use of ZPD-based instructions in TEFL writing in meaningful contexts and thereby showing impacts made on the writing accuracy of learners. The study, indeed, yield support to the feasibility of GW-ZPD measurement along with I-ZPD approach.







1. Introduction

Vygotsky’s (1978) Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) is regarded as a major breakthrough in the field of social psychology and as a resultant in education in general and language education in particular given the significant role of sign system in social construction. SCT is based on certain macro principles mainly including developmental analysis of mental program, social basis of human cognition, scaffolding, mediated learning, and ZPD. In Vygotsky’s sense, scaffolding is defined as the “role of teachers and others in supporting the learner’s development and providing support structures to get to that next stage or level” (Raymond, 2000, p.176, as cited in Van Der Stuyf, 2002).

While SCT principles have been implemented as to certain skills of language ability, writing skill seems to have been left intact to some extent. While writing is one of the main and productive skills, as well as a significant requirement for EFL learners. It is the most difficult skill to master because of its difficulties in generating, organizing, and translating ideas into a readable text (Richards & Renandya, 2002). At the same time, writing is often considered as the most difficult skill to be mastered (Hapsari, 2011). Researchers (Ellis, 2003; Skehan 1998) are now in agreement that L2 proficiency, in general, and writing proficiency, in particular, are multi-componential in nature, and that their principal dimensions can be adequately and comprehensively captured by the notions of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF; Housen and Kuiken, 2009).

Writing accuracy refers to “the extent to which the language produced conforms to the target language norms” (Skehan & Foster, 1996, p. 232). Accuracy refers to the production of error-free language. It is estimated by considering the percentage of error‐free clauses (Skehan & Foster, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2004) and the percentage of correct use of target features (Crookes, 1989, as cited in Ellis, 2004).

Scaffolding associates peer-and cooperative endeavor but its implementation seems unimaginable in the absence of ZPD measurement and operationalization. Analogous to society, classroom setting is the combination individuals working and cooperating in a community. It is a must and, of course, to some extent more feasible to identify and probably measure one’s ZPD in a bid to offer some kind of compatible education and input. Nevertheless, pure individualization may look at odd with the other principles of SCT, which is strongly in favor of socially-mediated learning and defining learning as movement along the continuum of intra-personal and inter-personal processes. Such a social, cooperative, and collaborative nature of learning and development requires an initiative to measure both I-ZPD along with GW-ZPD such that the expected mediation, scaffolding and inter-personal and intra-personal processes can be compatible and cooperative. Then, the main problem to be addressed is twofold: operationalization of the varieties of ZPD-based instruction (i.e. I-ZPD vs. GW-ZPD), and incorporation of these two varieties in teaching writing skills in relation to the learners’ variables such as their proficiency level in the form of e,g, test scores.

Based on the significance of the two categories of ZDP and writing in EFL contexts on one hand and the undesirable status of the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners (Hasani and Moghadam, 2012) on the other, this very study is rationalized on the following two premises:

- the interfaces between EFL learners’ writing quality in terms of accuracy and the two types of ZPD-based instructions (i.e. individualized and group-wide)

- these instructions’ effect on enhancing writing quality (i.e. accuracy) of Iranian EFL learners in terms of learners' types (i.e. low and high scorers).

In order to accomplish these objectives, the present study, focusing first and foremost on measuring each target learner’s I-ZPD and then on their GW-ZPD or average ZPD, and second on the feasibility and application of each ZPD scenarios in developing writing ability of Iranian EFL learners. More specifically, the following main question realized through four minor ones were posed:

1. Is there any significant difference in the effect of group-wide ZPD-based instruction and individualized ZPD-based instruction on the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners in terms of learners' types (low vs. high scorers)?

1.1 Does GW-ZPD-based instruction and I-ZPD-based instruction have different impact on the accuracy of EFL low-scored learners’ writing?

1.2 Minor Q: Does GW-ZPD-based instruction and I-ZPD-based instruction have different impact on the accuracy of EFL high-scored learners’ writing?

1.3 Minor Q: Does GW-ZPD-based instruction have significantly different effect on low scorers compared to high scorers in developing their writing accuracy?

1.4 Minor Q: Does I-ZPD-based instruction have significantly different effect on low scorers compared to high scorers in developing their writing accuracy?

2. Methodology

The research was conducted empirically through the implementation of the pretest-treatment-posttest design. A homogeneous group of 118 undergraduate, intermediate Persian EFL learners of both genders in the age range of 18 to 22 years old majored in Translation Studies from a university in Tehran students was selected based on their performance on their TOEFL ITP. Then, three pre- and post-tests (two writing tests and a ZPD test) were administered in the first and the last sessions, respectively. The two treatment groups were formed randomly to receive two types of ZPD-based instructions (individualized and group-wide). Another ZPD-test was also administered in the sixth session of the treatment in order to study ZPD development of the two treatment groups and give them their most suitable ZPD-based instructions.

Ultimately, comparison was made between the pre- and post-tests’ scores of the two intact writing classes. The learners’ ZPD development was measured before, after and in the mid of treatment using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM; Raven, 1998). Their ZPD development was, indeed, assessed and analyzed on a weekly basis and a monthly basis (three times in the semester -- before, after, and in the mid of treatment) taking the advantage of Kozulin and Garb’s (2002) learning potential score’s (LPS) formula.

To estimate the inter-rater reliability between the two raters, a randomly selected cluster of writing papers, including 28 sets of papers, scored by the two raters. Running Pearson correlations between these score sets indicated that there were significant agreements between the scores of writing accuracy (r (27) = .73, P < .05 representing a large effect size) as provided by the two raters. As a result, the researcher employed the mean of the two scores provided by the two raters as the final score for each participant’s writing performance in terms of their writing complexity, accuracy.

The treatment was applied for two consequent semesters in order to increase the intra-rater reliability of the findings. Running Pearson correlations between the score sets taken from the first and second semester’s participants of the study indicated that there were significant agreements between the two sets of scores of the participants’ writing performance (r (32) = .83, P < .05 representing a large effect size). As a result, the researcher employed the mean of the two sets of scores taken from the participants during the first and the second semesters as the final score for each participant’s writing performance in terms of their writing accuracy.



3. Results and Discussion

Due to the non-interval nature of the data, all research questions were probed through non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and Friedman’s test.

As to the first and the second minor research questions about the impact of the two types of ZPD-based instructions on the writing accuracy of the low scorers, and the high-scorers, the researchers taking advantage of the criteria proposed by Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) for the measurement of writing accuracy, came up with the following findings:

- The I-ZPD-based instruction helped the low-scored learners outperform GW-ZPD-based instruction group on the accuracy of writing (+.003 vs. -.136).

- While the I-ZPD-based instruction acted as a stronger deterrent against writing accuracy of the high-scored learners than the GW-ZPD-based instruction (-.037 vs. -.078).

As to the third and the fourth minor research questions on the effect of the GW-ZPD-based instruction, and the effect of the I-ZPD-based instruction on the writing accuracy of the low scorers compared to high scorers, the respective ANCOVA came up with the following findings:

- The GW-ZPD-based instruction act as a deterrent against writing accuracy of the low scorers (-.136) and high scorers (-.037) respectively significantly and slightly.

- And, the I-ZPD-based instruction acted slightly as a deterrent against writing accuracy of the high scorers (-.078) while acting as a very slight developer of writing accuracy of the low scorers (+.003).

As to the main question on the significant difference in the effect of the g-wide ZPD-based instruction and the I-ZPD-based instruction on the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners in terms of the learners' levels (i.e., low vs. high scorers), the researcher defined the I-ZPD-based instruction’s positive impacts on the writing accuracy of the low scorers, and the g-wide ZPD-based instruction’s negative impacts on the writing accuracy of the both levels of the learners (more on the low scorers than the high scorers).



4. Conclusion and Implications

In brief, two main conclusions from the above-mentioned discussion were drawn: 1) I-ZPD-based instruction is constructive to the writing accuracy of the low-scored learners. 2) GW-ZPD-based instruction is more destructive to the writing accuracy of the low scorers than the high scorers.

The results of the present study cast new light on the nature of ZPD, highlighting the significant difference between the two ways of its running (i.e. individualized vs. group-wide) and the achievements of the two types of EFL learners (i.e. low scorers vs. high scorers). These findings were in line with the results of the studies conducted by many other researchers on the individualized scaffolding technique of conference writing (e.g. Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1996; Nassaji & Swain, 2010) and on the whole-class scaffolding technique of template studied by several other scholars (e.g. Baleghizadeh et al., 2011; and Smit et al.,2013).

This study has significant pedagogical implications. Syllabus designers can apply two types of scaffoldings (used in the two types of ZPD-based instructions; i.e. group-wide and individualized) effective for the writing accuracy of the relevant low- and high-scored EFL learners to textbooks. The merit of these two types of ZPD-based instructions is that they challenge writing accuracy of the two types of EFL learners differently but in their ZPD providing guided free exploration.

Keywords

Subjects

زارعی، عباس و همکار (1396). "بررسی فراتحلیلی تأثیر شیوه آموزشی ژانر - مدار بر پیشرفت میزان مهارت در نوشتار زبان انگلیسی". جستارهای زبانی. د8، ش5 (پیاپی 40). صص107-137

Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic Assessment of Listening Comprehension in Second Language Learning. Penn State University Libraries. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/11063
Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadi, A., Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic Assessment of Writing Skill in Advanced EFL Iranian Learners. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.389
Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., Shabani, K. (2012). Group Dynamic Assessment: An Inventory of Meditational Strategies for Teaching Listening. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. http://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir /article_370_ed1de5b833f5a51c3c7c151f4631127c.pdf
Aljaafreh, A., Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal. https://www.jstor.org/stable/328585
Azari, T. M., Pouyan, A. (2016). The Effects of Peer-Mediated and Individual Writing Conditions on the Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners’ L2 Writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc39/d1630a38ad8019a3ce4730cad65ea1e36d27.pdf
Baleghizadeh, S., Timcheh Memar, A., Timcheh Memar, H. (2011). A Sociocultural Perspective on Second Language Acquisition: The Effect of High-Structured Scaffolding vs. Low-Structured Scaffolding on the Writing Ability of EFL Learners. Reflection on English Language Teaching. http://nus.edu.sg/celc/research/books/relt/vol10/43to54-baleghizadeh.pdf
Birjandi, P., Daftarifard, P. (2011). Potential Predictability of ZPD of Children’s Cognitive Development. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience (BRAIN). www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/download/198/326
Blankenship, J. M., Wilson, E. K. (2009). Teaching Writing and Research Skills in an Undergraduate Public Administration Class. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p282955_index.html
Byrd, D. (2008). Practical Tips for Implementing Peer Editing Tasks in the Foreign Language Classroom. Willey Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02125.x
Connor, U., Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse Approaches to Writing Assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/2661/Connor_Discourse_Approaches.pdf
De Guerrero, M. C. G., Villamil, O. S. (1996). Peer Revision in the L2 Classroom: Social-Cognitive Activities, Mediating Strategies, and Aspects of Social Behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Flower, L., Hayes, J., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/357381
Gregersen, T. S. (2003, December 31). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language-anxious students. Foreign Language Annals. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01929.x
Guk, L., Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807077561
Hapsari, A. S. (2011, November 1). The use of roundtable technique to improve students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text. Theory and Practice in Language Studies http://lib.unnes.ac.id/6829/1.haspreviewThumbnailVersion/7894.pdf.
Hasani, M. T., Moghadam, C. R. (2012). The effect of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing skills. The Iranian EFL Journal. https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39133463/
Housen, A. K. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Jalili, H. M., Shahrokhi, M. (2017). Impact of Collaborative Writing on the Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners’ L2 Writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0609/3d880069ea4007ed089cb3cb5c95f586ae1f.pdf
Kepner, C. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal. https://www.jstor.org/stable/328724
Kozulin, A., Garb, E. (2002, February 1). Dynamic Assessment of EFL Text Comprehension. School Psychology International. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Erratum: The Tapestry of Language Learning: Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44487758
Lockhart, C. N. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: stances, functions and content. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x
Mangelsdorf, K., Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A
McGroarty, M.E., Zhu, W. (I 997). Triangulation in classroom research: a study of peer revision. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.11997001
Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., Bavarsad, S. P. (2017). Going beyond One-to-One Mediation in Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461025
Mirzapour, F., Ahangari, S., & Saeidi, M. (2015, May 21). Individual vs. Whole Class Scaffolding and second Language Writing. DU Journal, Humanities and Social Sciences. http://dujournals.eu.pn/Special-issues/
Nassaji, H., Swain, M. (2010). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
Poehner, M.E. (2005). Dynamic Assessment of Oral Proficiency Among Advanced L2 Learners of French. Penn State University Libraries. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/6627
Polio, C. G. (2001, September 25). Second language development in writing: Measurement of fluency, Accuracy, and complexity. Studies in second language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101263050
Raven, J. R. (1998). Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1, General overview: introducing parallel versions of the CPM and SPM together with a more powerful version of the SPM (SPM plus). Oxford Psychologists. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/217571396
Richards, J. C., Renandya, W. A. (2010). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190
Rumisek, L.A., Zemach, D.E. (2005). Academic Writing from Paragraph to Essay. Macmillan Education.
Shepard, L.A. (2005). The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2009, December 8). Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency, and Lexis. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999, July 1). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance.The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning. Willey Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071
Smit J., Eerde H. A. A., Bakker A. (2013). A conceptualization of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007
Tajeddin, Z., Tayebipour, F. (2012). Dynamic Assessment of EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Request and Apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills. http://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.499
Tajeddin, Z., Tayebipour, F. (2015). Interface Between L2 Learners' Pragmatic Performance, Language Proficiency, and Individual/Group ZPD. Applied Research on English language. http://doi.org/10.22108/are.2015.15495
Tavakoli, M., Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. http://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2014.1857
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning. Willey Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes‖”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
Van Der, S., Rachel, R. (2002). Scaffolding as a Teaching Strategy. Adolescent Learning and Development.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4cca/0aa813c2b329e309721bffe4c30613416bb5.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Widdowson, G. H. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Wigglesworth, G., Storch, N. (2009, June 24). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., Ross, G. (1976, April 20). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry. Willey Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 1 - Serial Number 61
March and April 2021
Pages 457-489