Document Type : Research Paper


1 Shahrekord University, Iran

2 Shahrekord University


Central to Vygotsky-inspired sociocultural theory (SCT) is the notion of ZPD seen by SLA researchers as a useful framework within which L2 teaching and learning can take place. Van Lier (2004) argues that the ZPD could be activated in diverse proximal contexts (PCs) and is not limited to the expert-novice scenario. . This study probed whether Iranian EFL learners' collaborative task performance within different ZPD-based PCs results in their development of interactional competence (IC). Young's (2011) IC model was used for developing an IC test (ICT) employed at the pretest and posttest times. Three intact EFL listening-speaking classes at a university at southwest of Iran were randomly assigned to the expert-novice, equal-peers, and control (non-ZPD) conditions. The co-constructed interactions of the groups in (a)symmetrical ZPD-based conditions were audio-recorded for further analysis of participants' L2 IC development. A triangulation (quantitative and microgenetic) data-analysis approach was adopted. The results showed that whereas both ZPD groups (equal-peers and expert-novice) outperformed the non-ZPD group on IC posttests, no statistically significant difference was found between participants' IC development in symmetrical and asymmetrical PCs. Further, microgenetic analysis of the ZPD groups' interactions demonstrated how participation and activity in different PCs can effectively trigger awareness of mechanisms and norms of L2 spoken interaction and, in turn, result in IC development. The findings point to the applicability of diverse ZPD-adjusted PCs, composed of equal or unequal participants, in EFL classrooms and also the efficacy of ZPD-based interactive scenarios for students' development of L2 IC.


Achiba, M. (2012). Development of interactional competence: Changes in participation over cooking sessions. Pragmatics and Society, 3(1), 1-30.
Anton, M. and DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247.
Bachman, L. F., & Kunnan, A. J. (2005). Statistical analysis for language assessment workbook ad CD-ROM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barraja-Rohan, A. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507.
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.
CeKaite, A. (2007). A Child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45-62.
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 (pp. 39-64).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (2005). A look back at and forward to what language testers measure. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 815-832). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Donato‚ R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskyan approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood‚ NJ: Ablex.
Duncan, R. M. (1995). Piaget and Vygotsky revisited: Dialogue or assimilation? Developmental Review, 15(4), 458-472.
Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574.
Hall, J. K., & Doehler, S. P. (2012). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.). L2 interactional competence and develop (pp. 1-15). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach. England: Multilingual Matters.
Haywood, H. C., Brown, A. L., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psycho-educational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411-422.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Johnson, E. K. (2009). A sociocultural perspective on second language teacher education.Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Language Teacher Education 2009, Washington, DC.
Johnson, M. (2000). Interaction in the oral proficiency interview: Problems of validity. Pragmatics, 10(2), 215-31.
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation: A reexamination of the validity of the oral proficiency interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. London: Yale Language Series.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372.
Kramsch, C. (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning research: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of Research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335-353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markee, N. P. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marsh, G. E., & Ketterer, J. J. (2005). Situating the zone of proximal development. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2), 1-11.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446-466.
Mirzaei, A., & Eslami, Z. (2013). ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814198.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517.
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339-352.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., &Faldum, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language learning, 52(2), 365-400.
Rogoff, B. (1995).  Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship.  In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.). Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164).  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M. (2014). Exploring the construct of interactional oral fluency: Second language acquisition and language testing approaches. System, 45(1), 79-91.
Smith, L., Dockrell, J., & Tomlinson, P. (1997). Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond: Future issues for developmental psychology and education. New York: Routledge.
Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 305-322.
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.
Swain‚ M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
Swain, M. Kinnear, & Steinman, L. (2010). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409.
van Comperolle, R. A. (2013). Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.). Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 327-352). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
van Comperolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 245- 259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky‚ L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2004). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, R. F. (2000). Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Young, F.R. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. London/New York: Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426-443). London & New York: Routledge.