DA studies in second and foreign language learning to guide mediation

practice in this study

This section focuses on procedures and forms of mediation adopted in previous DA studies that were conducted in L2 and foreign language teaching settings. Prominent DA research relevant to this study includes the work by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Anton (2009), Davin (2011) and Ableeva and Lantolf (2011). Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) investigated the effects of negative feedback on second language learning. Although their work focused on the development of the learners’ ZPD, not DA, the procedures they used during tutoring sessions were similar to DA processes. During the one-to-one tutoring sessions, the learner and the tutor (as the mediator)

discussed grammatical problems found in the pre-written essays. The learner received corrective feedback during tutorials in the tutor’s office. The tutor read the essay before each tutorial but did not pre-plan a set of corrective procedures, and so made an online decision on the forms of feedback during the negotiation with the learner. The processes involved:

1) asking the learner to identify the mistakes by herself/himself

2) (the tutor) directing the learner’s attention to a sentence containing an error such as ‘Do you notice any problem?’ or ‘is there anything wrong in this sentence?’

3) (If the learner is still unaware) pointing out a line or phrase containing an error, by saying ‘Is there anything wrong in this line or segment?’

4) (If this does not work), giving further explicit prompts until the problem is solved.

From an analysis of interactions during the tutoring sessions, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) identified levels of help or regulation known as the regulatory scale (see Appendix B), consisting of 12 levels ranked from implicit to explicit help for error correction. I will adapt this regulatory scale to be used in this study, as presented in the final section of the literature review.

Anton (2009) employed the interactionist DA approach following Feuerstein’s DA model to assess learners’ abilities in a Spanish language learning program. The progress of third-year university level Spanish major learners was assessed through a five-part diagnostic test. DA procedures assessing learners’ writing and speaking abilities were adopted, and the mediation phase was organised immediately after the writing and speaking tests. In the writing session, during the mediation stage, the

teacher provided suggestions and prompts in which learners were encouraged to consult dictionaries and grammar books to revise their writing. The speaking test was conducted in the form of an oral interview including a narrative task. From the two examples of the narrative task produced by two learners, the results revealed that while the first learner could produce narration in the past with only a few mistakes in using the present form, the second learner had less control over tense and vocabulary. It is obvious that these two learners were at different levels and needed to receive different forms of mediation for diagnosis purposes.

The mediation given to the learner with greater difficulties was more specific and direct. For example, the teacher sometimes referred back to what he/she had just requested the learner to do, suggested the appropriate verbal tense, and gave choices. In contrast, the mediation with the more fluent speaker did not involve a lot of error correction but rather guided the speaker as to what to say next, pointing out the problem and encouraging a second attempt, and offering to ask if he/she could remember some words. It can be concluded from Anton’s study that for learners who lack control of language forms and vocabulary, the mediator should ask detailed questions and explain the mistakes in order to move them in a step-by- step direction, whereas providing general questions and encouragement to the more advanced learners could help move them along further.

Davin (2011) conducted G-DA for the teaching of WH-interrogatives (i.e. what, where, when) to elementary Spanish foreign language learners. The development of nine students was tracked while they were participating in both large and small group work activities during a ten-day DA programme in which mediation was provided within their ZPD. It was concluded that small group work complemented

large group DA in that it offered opportunities for request of mediation, verbalisation of thoughts and provided mediation to peers. Stages of giving mediation in Davin (ibid) involved identifying grammatically inaccurate interrogative forms of questions, providing prompts, and helping to re-formulate correct questions. Standardised mediation prompts were used, ranking from implicit to explicit as in this sequence: 1) pause with sceptical look, 2) repetition of entire phrase by teacher, 3) repetition of specific site of error, 4) forced choices, and 5) correct response and explanation provided. This study offers practical ideas on how DA can be integrated in everyday classroom learning and teaching in which it well supports group work activities. I think the first three prompts are helpful in signalling that some errors have occurred and learners need to check structures and vocabulary carefully. If the learners still cannot identify these errors, I may also use rising intonation as in interrogatives while reading inaccurate words or forms. Another interesting aspect of this study is the potential for peer support or mediation during group work. This will lead to the sharing of ideas on language and the correction of one another’s mistakes. The teacher may intervene by confirming if the language they have discussed is correct or providing prompts and suggestions, if needed.

Ableeva and Lantolf (2011) used the mediated dialogue to diagnose listening comprehension of the L2 learners of French. As a result of mediation, the microgenetic analysis revealed an improvement in the learners’ abilities measured for an increase in the number of ideas, and it was seen that they could also transfer their abilities to more complex texts. In particular, their investigation included the forms of mediation that could best nurture the development of listening abilities. Listening assessments were in the format of pre-test – enrichment program (EP) –

post-test. The EP sessions were arranged in groups, and involved tutoring and collaborative interactions between the learners and mediator in problematic areas such as phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and cultural knowledge. Ableeva and Lantolf concluded that mediation and enrichment that were sensitive to the learners’ ZPD helped to identify and diagnose specific problem areas in which the learners could overcome those problems. From one excerpt showing how the mediation is given, the mediator gives implicit to explicit forms of mediation, even uses a gesture and explains about French culture in the learner’s first language (English) for clarification in the final stage. I think offering two choices and using gestures may be helpful in case the learners still repeat the same errors after a few attempts. Offering two possible options allows learners more time to focus and think about those two structures or words. However, this should be done after all hints or prompts have been given, and it will be useful if the learners can give reasons why they chose one form or word over another. Verbalisation helps the teacher check on what learners have or have not understood. Also, giving explanation in the first language on abstract concepts (like French culture in Ableeva & Lantolf’s study) can deepen learners’ understandings on the issues relating to the use of language.

From the above DA studies, it can be seen that the forms of mediation given follow a sequence of implicit forms, and then gradually increase in explicitness to the most explicit forms, and finally correct answers and explanation are provided, if necessary. The forms of mediation that are frequently used in the studies include prompts, leading questions, and suggestions. The use of leading questions generally starts from general to specific in which the mediator attempts to relate the learners’ ideas from one area to another, as in the research conducted by Anton (2009),

wherein an example of interaction unfolds thus: ‘What do you think she is going to

do after shopping?’ and then when the learner fails to respond, the teacher asked a more specific question ‘Where do you think she could go?’. In addition to prompts and leading questions, I would also consider using forced choices as in Davin (2011). For learners with limited English proficiency, offering forced choices and asking them to explain reasons will focus their attention on those specific choices. This helps the teacher evaluate their understanding of the two options. Verbalising their ideas and reasons as to why they chose a specific choice over another indicates the levels of their understanding so that the teacher can decide if further mediation is needed. Poehner (2008) notes that verbalisation provides the teacher with insights into causes of poor performance, and since learners talk the teacher and themselves through what they have understood, this might also lead to self-mediation.

In this study as I will be taking both roles as the teacher and mediator without prior experience of conducting mediation, I believe that having a working mediation inventory will help me with classroom management. I would also consider using Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (1994) regulatory scales and forced choices and verbalisation technique adopted in some DA studies as a basis for creating my mediation inventory. Since the regulatory scales (see Appendix B) were developed for an improvement of writing and thus focused on error correction of the written work, I selected only levels 3, 6, 9, 11 to be included in the inventory to allow flexibility in giving mediation. As mentioned, forced choices followed by verbalisation have also been included in the third stage of my inventory. Below is the mediation inventory that will be used in this study.

1 The mediator encourages the learner(s) to firstly identify the problem. (if no response) The mediator indicates specific problematic area or segment e.g. ‘Is there anything wrong in this sentence?’ or repetition of

incorrect word or sentence.

2 The mediator indicates the nature of the problem.

e.g. ‘There is something wrong with the tense making here’. 3 The mediator offers choices and asks learners to verbalise their

ideas/reasons.

4 The mediator explains concepts or possible actions to tackle the problem to guide them to arrive at answer(s) or solutions themselves.

5 The mediator explains correct answer(s) or solution(s).

Table 6 Mediation inventory (adapted from Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s, 1994)

This mediation inventory will be trialled and refined during the pilot study. Thus, these levels of mediation will be kept flexible so that they can be adjusted or other forms of mediation could be added.