ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing

References

• Alegria de la Colina, A., & Garcia Mayo, M. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in a language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. Bachman, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, S., Amor, P., Drew, C., Hector, R., Simonds, P., & Yeabsley, M. (1998). Complete geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dobao, A. F. (2012a). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobao, A. F. (2012b). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33, 229–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vyogtskyan approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i+1: Incommensurable constructs, incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 51–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing!. Modern Language Journal, 82, 91–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 29, 757–772.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gánem-Gutiérrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29, 120–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255–276.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61–66.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell, & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 169–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to special issue. Modern Language Journal, 78, 418–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition: An overview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch, & O. St. John (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and technology (pp. 13–34). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, S. L., & Thorne, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Knouzi, I. (2008). French as a second language university students learn the grammatical concept of voice: Study design, materials development and pilot data. In J. P. Lantolf, & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 228–255). London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in reading and writing. In J. Carson, & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 9–33). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchon, R. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. Manchon (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vyogtskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
   Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nixon, J. G., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Emergent writing: The impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21, 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33, 503–517.
   Google Scholar
• Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language learning, 52, 365–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 183–198.
   Google Scholar
• Roebuck, R. F. (2001). Teaching composition in the college level foreign language class: Insights and activities from sociocultural theory. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 206–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63, 66–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (1997). Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 159–172.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effect of collaboration. In M. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in foreign language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle & practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York, NY: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2010). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition and the truth(s) about relativity. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 219–243). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. Modern Language Journal, 89, 393–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3267–3283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16, 39–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Wass, R., Harland, T., & Mercer, A. (2010). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development. Higher Education Research & Development, 30, 317–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects of fluency complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012a). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012b). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. Manchon (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–101). New York, NY: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D. (1988). How children think and learn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar