lst (print) issn 2051-9699

lst (online) issn 2051-9702

Article

Realizing the ZPD in Second Language

Education: The Complementary Contributions
of Dynamic Assessment and Mediated
Development

Paolo Infantea and Matthew E. Poehnerb

Abstract
Vygotsky’s (1978, 1987) notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) brings
into focus the dialectical nature of interactional processes that provoke second lan-
guage (L2) learner development. Two areas of L2 sociocultural theory (SCT-L2)
scholarship that draw upon the ZPD as a framework for organizing instructional
interactions are Dynamic Assessment (DA), wherein mediator-learner interac-
tion functions to diagnose learner maturing abilities (Poehner, 2008), and Medi-
ated Development (MD), an interactional framework that fosters learner capacity
to understand and employ L2 concepts within communicative activities (Poehner
and Infante, 2017). We argue that DA foregrounds assessing learner emerging abili-
ties without losing sight of their development through instruction, while MD shows
how appropriate instruction has to include assessing the learner. This paper extends
the argument that ZPD activity represents the dialectical relation between teaching
and assessing through analysis of transcribed classroom interaction that supports
the perspective that DA and MD can function together as part of a coherent L2 SCT
pedagogy.

Keywords: L2 Writing; Sociocultural Theory; Dynamic Assessment; Mediated

Development; Systemic Theoretical Instruction; Zone of Proximal
Development

Affiliations
a
Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA.
email: paolo.infante@mnsu.edu (corresponding author)

b
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
email: mep158@psu.edu

lst vol 6.1 2019 63–91 https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38916

©2019, equinox publishing
64 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

Introduction
The present study advances empirical research grounded in the notion of the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978,
1987) as distinguishing abilities that have fully developed from those still
emerging. Two lines of scholarship have sought to investigate the implica-
tions of ZPD activity for classroom practice and in particular teacher interac-
tional moves that support learner development (Lantolf, Poehner, and Swain,
2018). The more established area of research is Dynamic Assessment (DA).
In L2 DA, the teacher or assessor, referred to as a mediator, engages in inter-
action with learners following Vygotsky’s (1978) characterization of activity
marked by differential participation among individuals working in coopera-
tion (see notion of interpsychological functioning in Poehner and Infante,
2015). Through joint engagement, which frequently includes negotiating
forms of support such as hints, feedback, and leading questions, a mediator is
able to determine how near learners are to more independent functioning as
well as identify sources of learner difficulty. As dialectical activity, such coop-
eration may indeed lead to changes in learner understanding of relevant lan-
guage features or improve their control of those features in communication.
To be sure, such development is not presumed to occur as the result of a single
interaction, but it is possible. For this reason, L2 DA is most effective when it
is conceived as part of a broader development-oriented approach to education.
The primary aim of L2 DA, however, is diagnostic.
A more recent area of inquiry that represents a complementary framework
to the assessment function of ZPD activity is Mediated Development (MD).
Initially outlined in Poehner and Infante (2015), the focus in MD shifts from
diagnosing the extent of learner emerging abilities to introducing knowl-
edge, concepts, and principles that learners can use to regulate their thinking
and acting as they move from interpsychological activity to more indepen-
dent, or what Vygotsky (1978) described as intrapsychological, functioning. In
the case of L2 education, this process entails gaining understandings of lan-
guage and culture that enable learners to think and act with and through the
L2. In the first in-depth study of MD with L2 learners, Infante (2016) docu-
ments mediating learner understanding and use of symbolic tools through
their explanation, modeling, discussion, planning, evaluation and reflection.
Taken together, DA and MD bring to light how ZPD activity in instructional
contexts may orient primarily toward either an assessing or teaching function
while not losing sight of the dialectic that binds them to one another.
Our aim in this paper is to illustrate how these orientations may manifest
in an L2 education program designed according to Vygotskian principles.
Data are taken from a larger study (Infante, 2016) in which US second-
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 65

ary school and university English L2 learners were introduced to the Eng-
lish tense-aspect system in the context of a voluntary program to support
their writing development in English. The content of the program eschewed
traditional grammar-based presentations of language in favor of Systemic
Theoretical Instruction (STI) (Gal’perin, 1989, 1992). As Negueruela (2008)
explains, STI concerns the design of school curricula around abstract con-
ceptual knowledge through different semiotic resources, such as verbal defi-
nitions, tables, charts, and pictorial representations. In this way, the approach
seeks to offer learners symbolic tools for thinking within meaningful goal-
oriented activity. As Negueruela (2008) and Lantolf and Poehner (2014) note
that bringing symbolic and dialogic forms of mediation together represents
a powerful, theoretically coherent form of educational intervention to guide
and support learner development. With this orientation in mind, the current
study analyzes sessions in which mediator-learner interaction sought to reveal
learner understanding of the English tense-aspect system and others in which
the mediator endeavored to guide learners toward the appreciation of how STI
materials could serve as symbolic tools to regulate their comprehension and
use of the L2 during structured activities and writing tasks. In our view, this
is an important step toward both understanding how the orientation in DA
and MD lead to observable differences in interaction as well as appreciating
their complementarity.

ZPD activity as dialectical process

As background to the conceptualization of DA and MD in this study, we
begin with a discussion of ZPD activity and then turn to how this has been
pursued as a framework for assessing and teaching to, respectively, under-
stand and promote learner development. Poehner and van Compernolle
(2011) synthesize Holzman’s (2009) discussion of the various interpreta-
tions of the ZPD that have been proposed and the lines of research they have
informed. The three major readings of Vygotsky’s statements concerning the
concept that Holzman (2009) identifies are that the ZPD is a quality or attri-
bute of individuals, that it is a procedure for supporting learners, and that
it is an activity undertaken cooperatively with learners that seeks to trans-
form their abilities. As Holzman explains, each of these interpretations of
the ZPD favors particular contexts in Vygotsky’s writings where the con-
cept is discussed, and what emerges lends itself to certain applications. As
an example, and because it is most relevant to our present topic, we consider
a reading of Vygotsky that has been especially influential in the develop-
ment of DA research outside the L2 field. Vygotsky frequently described the
ZPD through examples involving children whose independent performance
66 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

of tasks based on the concept of ‘mental age’ was similar but who differed
with regard to the level of functioning they reached when interacting with a
teacher, or mediator (e.g., Vygotsky, 1987). Such illustrations of the concept,
along with analyses offered by Vygotsky of changes to children’s IQ scores
during the first year of schooling and references to a large or small ZPD (see
van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991) inspired psychologists concerned with at-
risk (specifically, racial and ethnic minorities from low socio-economic back-
grounds) and under-performing learners, including those with special needs,
to devise testing procedures aimed at ‘uncovering’ the ZPD. Indeed, much
DA research in the fields of psychology and cognitive education has been
motivated by identifying abilities that individuals possess and that remain
hidden from conventional standardized measures (see Sternberg and Grig-
orenko, 2002).
This orientation is exemplified in early model of DA proposed by Budoff
and Friedman (1964) that carries the term Learning Potential Measurement.
Referencing Luria’s (1961) presentation of the ZPD in the context of differen-
tiating underlying difficulties experienced by learners, Budoff and Friedman
depict their approach as:

A procedure oriented toward uncovering any latent ability to learn using tasks in
which previous experience is not required, and … the potential of the subject and
his prognosis can then depend more upon the reasoning and learning ability he can
demonstrate in a milieu oriented toward helping him succeed, rather than, as has
been usual, ‘putting him on the spot’ and demanding a performance of which he has
usually felt himself to be incapable (Budoff and Friedman, 1964: 438).

Similarly, Brown and Ferrara (1985: 330) described their Graduated Prompt
Approach to DA as offering an ‘index of speed of learning’ (p. 300) by tracking
the extent to which learner independent performance of test items improved
following a session in which mediation was made available to them when
they encountered problems. Those authors pointed out that even learners
whose initial performance on a traditional IQ test was below that of their
peers showed improvement following mediation, in many cases catching up
to their peers. This led them to conclude that learner potential for change is
‘not predictable from their IQ scores’ (Brown and Ferrara, 1985: 288).
As these discussions make plain, an important strand of research has
drawn upon the ZPD to conceive a dimension of cognitive functioning that
is not adequately captured in most assessment situations but that is dis-
cernible when an instructional element is introduced. This line of work has
undoubtedly been fruitful although, as Holzman (2009) observes, references
to Vygotsky’s own writings in such research have been limited and give the
impression that the ZPD itself is an alternative to IQ. That is, what is uncov-
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 67

ered in such procedures, whether learning potential or a capacity referred to

as the ZPD, is discussed as an indicator of an individual’s cognitive abilities.
Whether it is a ‘general’ ZPD or one that is specific to a particular domain
or even task type is not specified. From this, it is not much of a leap to begin
speaking of ‘how much’ (or how ‘wide’ a) ZPD individuals possess.
Beginning in the 1990s and continuing into the early 2000s, more of
Vygotsky’s writings became available through translation, permitting
researchers both to trace discussions of the ZPD throughout his work (see
Chaiklin, 2003) as well as to better situate the concept in a more nuanced
understanding of his scientific enterprise. One important example of this
comes from Vygotsky’s (1998: 204) explanation of the ‘great practical signifi-
cance’ of the ZPD, which he saw as allowing educational activity to maximally
guide learner development by targeting ‘immature, but maturing processes’
rather than those that have already completed their development. He fur-
ther refers to the importance of ‘determining’ these emerging abilities and to
establishing ‘the optimum time for teaching’ through identification of these
maturing abilities (ibid.). Such elaborations of the ZPD in Vygotsky’s writings
inform the interpretation that Holzman (2009) characterizes as emphasizing
a joint undertaking with learners that prioritizes transformation of abilities.
Indeed, as Poehner and van Compernolle (2011) explain, a view of the ZPD
as activity in which mediators and learners co-construct a potential future
has been especially influential in the L2 field (see, for instance, Lantolf and
Thorne, 2006).
In L2 DA research, the possibility of determining learner emerging abil-
ities and aligning instructional intervention to them has become axiomatic
(see Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002, for discussion). Identifying those abili-
ties resonates with well-known statements made by Vygotsky portraying the
ZPD in relation to the difference between individuals’ independent psychologi-
cal functioning and their performance under conditions of inter-psychological
activity, wherein processes that otherwise occur internally unfold on the dia-
logic plane of interaction between mediators and learners (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978).
As with DA research in general education and psychology, L2 DA research-
ers closely attend to moves made by the mediator and to learner responsive-
ness as essential to diagnosing the full range of learner abilities (Lantolf and
Poehner, 2014; Poehner, 2008). L2 DA, however, closely follows Vygotsky by
interpreting these dynamics in relation to internalization and the shift from
co-regulation to self-regulation. In our view, rather than a search for latent
capacity L2 DA centers around processes: processes through which media-
tors and learners differentially contribute toward a common end; processes
of negotiating mediation moment-to-moment in activity; and processes that
reveal learner self-regulation through mediational means they have already
68 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

appropriated, the limits of this functioning, and possibilities created during

co-regulation. This latter point, creating possibilities, merits elaboration.
Assessment is conventionally understood as gathering information about
abilities as they currently exist – that is, abilities in their present state. Even
some DA research, as discussed, has adopted this stance. L2 DA, in contrast,
does not accept this bifurcation between understanding abilities and support-
ing their development. This is because, following Vygotsky’s (1998) remarks
concerning the significance of the ZPD for education, offering external forms
of mediation to learners is central to both assessing emerging abilities and pro-
viding instruction to guide development. At the level of practice, co-regulated,
inter-psychological activity intended to diagnose learner development creates
the potential for learners to arrive at realizations, form connections, appro-
priate ways of orienting to tasks, and gain insights into dimensions of their
performances that were successful and those that were problematic (Poehner,
2008). It is in this way that, since its introduction to the L2 field, DA propo-
nents have argued that assessing and teaching exist in relation to one another,
as two sides of the same coin (Lantolf and Poehner, 2004).
A relational view of assessing and teaching is not unique to DA or to SCT.
A vast research literature on formative assessment and related proposals
argues for the relevance of assessment to teaching and learning (e.g., Tsagari
and Csepes, 2011). What sets SCT apart is the nature of that relation. As L2
researchers have come to a greater appreciation of the influence of Marxism
on Vygotsky’s theorizing, it has become clear that engaging with dialectical
thinking is essential both for understanding Vygotsky’s enterprise and con-
tinuing it (see Lantolf and Thorne, 2006; Lantolf and Poehner, 2014). Given
space constraints and our current focus, we will not examine dialectics or its
role in SCT in this paper but instead refer interested readers to detailed con-
siderations of this topic by Lantolf and Poehner (2014) and Poehner (2016). We
do wish to underscore, however, that understanding teaching and assessing
in dialectic relation does not mean that they are one and the same nor does
it suggest that researchers and practitioners should search for ways to con-
nect them. Instead, a dialectical perspective regards teaching and assessing
as features of an integrated activity, which we have suggested is ZPD activity
(Poehner and Infante, 2015). Teaching and assessing then cannot be under-
taken in manner that separates one from the other, as both dimensions are
always present. Accounting for both is necessary not only to maintain the
integrity of the dialectic and to ensure that the activity is engaging learner
emerging abilities. As we have argued, it is of course possible for certain pur-
poses or in particular contexts to foreground one of these dimensions of ZPD
activity (Poehner and Infante, 2015). What must be kept in mind is that, as
the visual metaphor implies, foregrounding assumes a background, and so
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 69

while assessing, for instance, might be foregrounded in some instances this

does not imply an erasure of teaching (and vice-versa).
While it is thus certainly possible to alternately prioritize teaching over
assessing or vice-versa during an interaction, it is also the case that one may
devote particular sessions to one or the other of these foci. What is impera-
tive is to understand that this does not imply a return to commonplace prac-
tice in which assessing and teaching are regarded as distinct in themselves.
Rather, assessing and teaching remain internally related to one another; that
is, assessing comprises teaching as part of what constitutes it just as teach-
ing contains assessment within itself. Given a dialectical perspective that sees
assessing and teaching as formed together and changing together, there is no
need for researchers or practitioners to search for ways in which to connect
them; they necessarily exist in relation to one another. An example of this
relation is perhaps found in the Mediated Learning Experience framework
developed by Feuerstein in his work with children with special needs and dis-
advantaged learners in Israel (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, and Falik, 2010).
As Poehner (2008) explains, of all the existing DA models in the general
education and psychology research literatures, Feuerstein’s most closely par-
allels Vygotsky’s vision of the ZPD’s significance for education (for discussion
of similarities between Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s thinking, see Miller, 2011).
Feuerstein refers to his model as Mediated Learning Experience to convey
both the centrality of mediation for the development of psychological abili-
ties and its value for both diagnosing and promoting further development.
Through his practical work, Feuerstein concluded that many children with
underdeveloped capabilities suffered not from a biologically-rooted difficulty
but from a lack of the kinds of activities during childhood in which medi-
ation from adults allows them to participate and contribute. Indeed, when
individuals do have clear needs that are a result of biology, a similar lack of
opportunities to engage in rich interaction further exacerbates their chal-
lenges, another observation also reflected by Vygotsky. For this reason, Medi-
ated Learning Experience involves mediators co-functioning with learners,
providing every imaginable form of external mediation in an effort to trace
learner responsiveness. Initial sessions of Mediated Learning Experience are
concerned then with diagnosing learner development, including the forms of
mediation to which they appear most responsive. This is followed by an indi-
vidualized enrichment program during which Mediated Learning relies upon
specialized materials and activities designed to promote basic cognitive func-
tioning. Throughout the program, a mediator continues the dialogic process
of working with learners, although the goal of diagnosis takes a backseat to
mediating the materials to learners and helping them arrive at new ways of
thinking and acting.
70 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

Just as Feuerstein’s work has strongly influenced L2 DA research, it has also

been an inspiration for more recent work in L2 Mediated Development (MD).
As we consider in detail in the rest of this paper, DA and MD both consti-
tute inter-psychological ZPD activity co-constructed by mediators and learn-
ers. They differ with the former seeking to probe learner understanding of
and control over various features of language during communicative activity
while the latter aims at provoking learner development by introducing sym-
bolic representations of language, guiding learners toward an understanding
of the relevance of those resources for interpreting and conveying meanings,
and helping learners appropriate the resources as tools for thinking. Paral-
leling one of the major strengths of Feuerstein’s approach, it is our view that
together DA and MD offer a coherent framework for engaging with learners
to guide L2 development.

MD: Dialogic interaction that supports thinking-with-tool

activity
Reuven Feuerstein and his associates (e.g., Feuerstein, Feuerstein, and Falik,
2010) articulate three significant characteristics of Mediated Learning Expe-
rience that serve as principles which guide the formulation of MD: foster-
ing learner development; supporting learner appropriation of symbolic tools
through mediator-learner interaction; and attending to the affective dimen-
sions of joint activity that promote learner self-regulation (we suggest that
readers consult a more detailed overview of these principles in Poehner and
Infante, 2017). Of particular relevance to our present topic is Feuerstein’s
belief that mediation attuned to the appropriation of specially-designed ped-
agogical materials serves as an indispensable process in learner psychological
development (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, and Falik, 2010).
Although Feuerstein, Feuerstein, and Falik do not explicitly mention the
term symbolic tools, their beliefs parallel those of Gal’perin (1992: 98) in that
specially designed curriculum ‘create in learners the thinking structures and
emotional motivations that will enable them to modify themselves in the
course of direct contact with information, stimuli, and experiences’ (p. 98; our
emphasis). This sentiment is echoed in the work of Kinard and Kozulin (2008),
a study that provides a detailed account of the implementation of Mediated
Learning Experience to cultivate mathematical thinking within an elementary
school setting. Symbolic tools were designed around a range of mathematical
concepts (e.g., independent and dependent variables, x-y intercepts, slope, etc.)
that were presented by an expert mediator to learners in the form of images,
diagrams and verbal explanations. In one-to-one sessions, the mediator and
learners engaged in increasingly complex structured activities that connected
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 71

abstract theoretical knowledge to concrete mathematical tasks. The mediator

sought to mediate the meaning of the mathematical concepts with keen atten-
tion to: specific elements of the symbolic tool and how said elements corre-
spond to the mathematical concepts; modeling tool use in cooperative tasks;
and co-regulating learner tool use performance in mathematical activities.
Kinard and Kozulin (2008) explain that the absence of an expert mediator
may impede learners from coming to understand how symbolic tools function
to guide their performance in authentic activities. A similar situation holds
true within an L2 STI program. A lack of adequate dialogic mediation may
create the conditions in which learners are unable to understand the under-
lying principles of a concept, and therefore inhibit learner ability to perform
beyond the immediate situation to address a broader range of applications
(Kinard and Kozulin, 2008). Feuerstein’s work with Mediated Learning Expe-
rience, exemplified by Kinard and Kozulin, informed our conceptualization
of MD as an interactional framework that foregrounds the teaching compo-
nent of ZPD activity by presenting learners new ways of thinking about L2
features within an STI program. The specific ways in which MD and DA can
advance the goals of an L2 STI framework provided us with an orientation
to explore how ZPD activity may function to either foreground assessment to
reveal the current state of learner conceptual understanding, both indepen-
dent and emergent, or foreground the instructional element, whereby media-
tion fosters learner thinking-with-tool behavior.

The study
The study stems from a larger project (Infante, 2016) that sought to advance
L2 learner capacity to control the English tense and aspect system in an L2
STI writing program. During Spring 2015, the first author, who served as the
mediator in the study, recruited eight English learners from two sites in a mid-
Atlantic US college town. The first set of participants (n = 4) were adult L1
Arabic speakers registered in full-time studies at a university Intensive Eng-
lish Program (IEP). At the time of the study, the college-level students were
concurrently taking a writing course at either the high-intermediate (level 3)
or advanced (level 4) levels. The second set of participants (n = 4), adolescent
L1 Korean English learners, were enrolled in a local-area secondary school
and were no longer receiving supplemental ESL services. All participants met
individually with the mediator, an ESL teacher familiar with SCT pedagogy,
for six weekly sessions.
In the first session, learners engaged in an oral non-dynamic diagnostic
assessment of their metalinguistic knowledge by reading questions associ-
ated with the English tense-aspect system (e.g., what is tense? what is aspect?
72 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

sentence-comparison tasks). Sessions two to five involved a similar multi-

phase protocol in which mediator-learner dialogue began with the intro-
duction (applicable to Session two only) or review of the conceptual tool. As
learner familiarity with the tool grew, less time was allocated to its review
in later meetings. Mediator-learner focus then turned to orienting learner
attention to the key features of the tool through structured activities (for
more information, consult Infante, 2016 and Infante, 2018). The last phase
of Sessions two to five concluded with mediator and learner jointly review-
ing learner narratives by drawing from the symbolic tool to inform pos-
sible revisions. In the final session of the L2 STI program, the mediator
administered a non-dynamic and dynamic version of the initial diagnos-
tic assessment to discern learner conceptual understanding of the English
tense-aspect system.
In the present paper, we will examine interactions between the media-
tor and three learners: Dana (D), an adult female L1 Arabic English learner;
Victor (V) and Terry (T), two adolescent L1 Korean English learners. Perti-
nent biodata of each learner is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Biodata of featured learners

Participant Sex Age L1 Time Learning Time Living IEP Writing Grade
Name English formal EFL in US Level level
context; ESL context
Dana F 24 Arabic 11 months (ESL) 11 months 4 N/A

Terry M 17 Korean 4 years (EFL); 3 years, 8 N/A 10

2 years (ESL) months
Victor M 16 Korean 4 years (EFL); 2 years, 8 N/A 9
2 years (ESL) months

Pedagogical materials
The pedagogical materials employed in this study focused on rendering a sci-
entific understanding of the English tense-aspect system through research
rooted in Cognitive Linguistics (CL) (Radden and Dirven, 2007; Gánem-
Gutiérrez and Harun, 2011; Langacker, 1991; Fauconnier, 1998). CL is a
meaning-based theory of L2 learning (Tyler, 2012) that has been identified
as a suitable partner to L2 SCT research (Lantolf, 2011). In line with L2 STI
research, CL designs L2 teaching materials around functional perspectives
of language (Mitchell, Myles, and Marsden, 2013) and visual depictions of
L2 concepts based upon form-meaning relationships (Masuda and Arnett,
2015). Figure 1 represents a comprehensive diagram of the English tense-
aspect system from a recalled point perspective, the language focus of this
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 73

study (please consult Infante, 2016, for a detailed description of the entire set
of STI materials implemented in the study).
From an Anglo-American perspective, tense is considered a tempo-
ral continuum that marks past, present, and future events. The sentences
Harry bought a house (past) and Harry buys a house (present) vary in tense
and denote two points visually indicated on a timeline. Fauconnier (1998)
explains that tense offers a shared frame of reference, referred to as mental
space, and that a condition for successful communication is that speak-
ers conceive a common temporal location (or mental space) of the same
event. The notion of mental spaces has been quite productively used in L2
education to illustrate tense in the spatial dimension (Radden and Dirven,
2007; Gánem-Gutiérrez and Harun, 2011). The temporal order of the mental
spaces (tenses) illustrated in the central slide of the pedagogical tool (Figure
1) reads as follows: anterior to past (past perfect), past (past), and anterior
to present (present perfect). In Figure 1, the eye icon signifies the speaker or
writer’s perspective of an event, or what has been referred to as speech time
(Comrie, 1976), and it is situated in the present tense mental space looking
backward in time to past events (event time). Given that traditional gram-
mar texts represent the English tense-aspect system as a composition of ‘12
tenses’ (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999), imagistic representations
of tense as mental spaces can benefit L2 learners because they highlight the
separate and distinct terms of tense and aspect (i.e., simple or progressive).
Whereas tense locates situations in relation to speech time (i.e., ‘situation-
external time’), grammatical aspect refers to the ‘internal constituency of a
situation’ and therefore is an internal window into how a speaker or writer
views a situation at a given time (Comrie, 1976). In English, a situation may
be viewed from different perspectives depending on how the author wishes
to capture that moment. This contrast in perspective of the same event is rep-
resented with the simple and progressive aspects (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013). The
differences in aspect (simple or progressive) are denoted in Figure 1 through
the five event frames that are located across mental spaces. These five event
frames indicate a particular tense-aspect combination from a recalled point
perspective: past simple (E1: Event 1), past progressive (E2: Event 2), past per-
fect simple (E3: Event 3), present perfect simple (E4: Event 4) and present per-
fect progressive (E5: Event 5). Each event frame holds a different arrangement
of colored vertical and horizontal lines that point to a corresponding internal
view (simple or progressive) that a speaker or writer may have of an event.1
During the first session of the L2 STI program, the conceptual tool, which
includes Figure 1 with its visual depictions of mental spaces and event frames,
was introduced to participants. It is worth exploring the meanings the visual
elements convey in the past simple (E1) and the present perfect simple (E4)
event frames because they are featured in Excerpts (1) below and (2). In E1, the
74 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

Figure 1. Conceptual tool: English tense-aspect system from recalled point perspective

speaker perceives both the beginning and end boundaries of an event indi-
cated by the green vertical lines and views the event as completed. The solid
blue timeline represents the completed portion of the event, and it is the focus
of the speaker’s utterance. In E4, the green vertical line designates the begin-
ning boundary of an event, but unlike the past simple, there is no end bound-
ary as it is unclear when the situation will terminate. The solid blue timeline
delineates the portion of the event that has already transpired. Because there
is no end boundary, the blue timeline reaches the edge of the event frame,
which means that the event extends from a past time (the anterior to present
mental space) to
speech time. The absence of an end boundary in the E4 frame means that, in
some cases, the event may continue beyond speech time, and this feature is
noted graphically by the presence of the dotted red timeline.
A CL approach is intended to create instructional tools that present the
range of linguistic choices available to L2 learners in a systematic and visual
fashion. However, the availability of pedagogical materials does not mean
learners will be able to implement them as psychological tools to accomplish
authentic tasks, and therefore educational programs should not assume that
conceptual understanding of L2 features emerges independently of mindful
guidance. As Kozulin (2003:24) aptly notes, ‘symbols remain useless unless
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 75

their meaning as cognitive tools is properly mediated’. With this orientation

in mind, we now consider two different sets of interactions in which MD
and DA are integrated into an L2 STI program. Excerpts (1) and (2) fore-
ground principles of MD discussed above in which dialogic the mediator’s
dialogic support serves to co-regulate the planning, execution and evalua-
tion of learner tense-aspect choices to arrive at a deeper understanding of the
meanings illustrated by STI materials. We then turn to Excerpts (3) to (6) in
which the focus of joint activity shifts toward assessing learner conceptual
understanding of the distinct terms tense and aspect.

Foregrounding the instructional function of the ZPD dialectic: A focus

on MD
The transcribed interaction from Excerpts (1) and (2) have been drawn from
the first session of the study (see appendix for transcription conventions)
between the mediator (M) and Dana (D), an adult female L1 Arabic English
learner with advanced English proficiency. The excerpts constitute the ini-
tial instance in which Dana (D) applied her emergent knowledge of the con-
ceptual tool to her own work, a short personal narrative about an important
event in her childhood that she had composed prior to the first session. (M)
informed D before co-reviewing the narrative that he might stop her at any
given time while she read her story aloud to discuss the reasons for her choices
and that she could consult the pedagogical materials as a resource. During the
co-revision process, Figure 1 of the pedagogical materials was located above
the physical copy of her story.
Together Excerpts (1) and (2) represent an example of MD. In Excerpt (1),
M guides the learner through the process of thinking through her original
choice of tense and aspect by identifying salient features of the sentence that
point to the meaning she wished to express. Concurrently, M does not lose
sight of assessing D’s emergent ability to employ the tool as he closely moni-
tors D’s responses to inform his subsequent instructional moves. We enter the
interaction at a point when M asked D to reflect on her sentence, A months
later, my beautiful sister has arrived to this world.

(1)
1 D: ‘A months later my beautiful sister Mara has arrived
2 to this world’
3 M: let’s stop there (.) let’s look at this sentence (.)
4 which tense aspect combination did you use?
5 D: has arrived it’s uh present perfect (2) it is? ((eye
6 gaze shifts to central slide of pedagogical
7 materials))
8 M: mm hmm
76 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

9 D:  no past perfect >I don’t know< [(.) yeah

10 M:                             [what is it? has
11 arrived
12 D: a second please uh yeah it’s present perfect ((points
13 to exemplar at bottom of the central slide))
14 has arrived yeah °present perfect°
15 M: okay 
16 D: oh yeah I should mention uh a date or something
17 M: (2) did you mention a date here? ((referring to text))
18 D: like I didn’t like I said like >a month later my
19 beautiful< (.) no
20 M: (1) a month later from when?
21 D: from that thought ((RH finger points to previous
22 sentence in her text)) oh↑ yeah↑(.) so is that like
23 ((pencil points to current sentence))
24 just reminds something (.) this is- is this determine
25 my my b- b- b-beginning boundary? ((LH extends
26 forward iconically depicting a boundary))
27 M: hmm:↑ (.) yeah ((head nods))
28 so wh- what what does it tell me now about a month
29 later? so we know that- is it a specific time?
30 D: it is not a specific time but it refers to (.) uh (2)
31 uh when uh:: okay sin- since I have my thoughts on
32 when I was on four (.) when I was fo- ab- bout four
33 years old?
34 after that by months (.) my sister arrived
35 so yeah I have like not a specific time but (.) I
36 refer to time
37 M: I think you have a specific time
38 four years and one month (.) right?
39 that is pretty specific
40 D: mhm::↑

As D concluded the reading of her sentence, M prompts D to stop and

consider her choice of verbal tense and aspect (lines 3–4). This move served
to determine whether D could employ pertinent features of the concep-
tual tool to analyze her own work rather than analyzing teacher-generated
exemplars. In line 5, D answers M’s query with the appropriate tense-aspect
marker but M holds his response, neither confirming nor challenging it.
This represents a strategic mediational move that served to reveal D’s con-
fidence in her answers. After a short pause, D proceeds to cast doubt on her
selection, and then looks to the central slide of the pedagogical materials
for assistance. Her decision to reference the conceptual tool demonstrates
that she deems it a resource, an important goal of MD: learners come to
view the materializations as relevant to their target language use and they
draw them into interactions as external forms of support to work through
difficulties.
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 77

In line 8, M refrains from any explicit form of feedback but rather offers an
acknowledgment token allowing D to keep control of the interactional floor.
With her eyes scanning Figure 1, D responds in an impulsive manner, iden-
tifying the ‘past perfect’ (line 9) as the label for her construction has arrived.
She then retreats from this response and voices her uncertainty (line 9: ‘I don’t
know’). While D’s eyes continue to scan Figure 1, M reminds D of the target
structure (has arrived) that would help her to locate the appropriate tense-
aspect choice. In response, D’s curt reaction (line 10: ‘a second please’) sug-
gests that she prefers to accept the available materials as mediation but is not
yet ready for M’s verbal support.
In line 14, she confirms her previous response, ‘present perfect’, and points
to the exemplar in Figure 1 that supports her selection. Following M’s con-
firmation, D asserts that the present perfect (simple) requires a specific time
in which the action occurred (line 16). If we recall our earlier description of
the E4 event frame, D’s response is puzzling given that within the same ses-
sion the dyad had discussed how indicating a specific time of an event (i.e.,
the presence of beginning and end boundaries) is not a property of present
perfect events. In fact, her confusing reply presents a peculiar challenge given
because her text explicitly states that her sister’s birth occurred a months
later. It may be that D wished to express one or multiple months in her text,
but M’s prompt (line 20: ‘a month later from when?’) signals to D that iden-
tifying a time reference is a significant step in determining an appropriate
tense-aspect choice.
The interaction continues in lines 21–26, as D externalizes her thinking
about the source of confusion and the conflation between two tense-aspect
combinations: the past simple (E1) and present perfect simple (E4). With
pencil in hand, she points to the portion of the text that indicates when she
wished for a sibling (I was just about four years old) and then points to the
expression that refers to the time of her sister’s birth (a months later). At issue
is D’s inability to register that she had demarcated a specific time in which
her sibling’s birth occurred and that a definite time signals a bounded event,
which is an essential characteristic of the past simple. M and D had discussed
this point earlier in the session during her introduction to the symbolic tool.
In lines 37–39, M refrains from offering D an explicit form of mediation –
namely, providing D with the tense-aspect marker for her sentence – but
rather chooses to use the information regarding D’s emergent understanding
to guide his instructional moves. In this case, D did not view the property of
definite time as signifying a bounded event, which should bring to mind the
past simple and not the present perfect simple.
We now turn to Excerpt 2 in which the focus of interaction is directed
toward making salient specific features of the materialization (Figure 1) that
78 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

would enable D to solve the immediate issue as well as related problems, a cen-
tral concern of MD. We pick up the exchange with M prompting D to consider
the relevance of a specific (definite) time (lines 41–42).

(2)
41 M: one thing is that when we know we have a specific time
42 right?
43 D: mm hmm
44 M: we are placing it in the past tense ((RH index finger
45 and thumb together hovers over past tense mental space
46 touching E1 frame))
47 D: okay
48 M: and we know that if it’s a specific time in which your
49 sister was born right?
50 you’re saying four years old plus two or three months
51 right?
52 that’s giving me a time in which the event occurr[ed
53 D: [which
54 means that I have to say Mara arrived to this world
55 M: nice because we know it has boundaries 
56 D: yeah (.) yeah I see your point right now ((crosses out
57 auxiliary verb “has” from composition))

It is important to note that M approaches the task as a moment to pull

in the pedagogical materials and demonstrate their relevance to the cur-
rent issue and future problem-solving situations. Having isolated the phrase
‘specific time’, M explains both in broad terms and in relation to the specific
event of the birth of D’s sister that definite time should produce a mental
image of the past tense mental space, and more specifically the E1 frame.
The notion of definite time and its relationship with (i) the past simple (E1)
event frame and (ii) the past tense mental space was presented to D ear-
lier during her introduction to the pedagogical materials. In lines 53–54, D
takes control of the floor to modify her original construction from the pres-
ent perfect simple to the past simple (line 54: ‘Mara arrived’). M commends
D for her contribution and completes his explanation by notably referring to
the past simple as a bounded event (line 55). D proceeds to revise her sen-
tence to reflect the past simple construction. To be sure, D’s revision and
accompanying acknowledgment (line 56: ‘yeah I see your point right now’)
should not be taken as an indication that D has arrived at a fully developed
conceptual understanding of the notion of boundedness that will adequately
guide her verbal tense-aspect choices in all future situations. The point is
that her understanding of the English tense-aspect system is still in the pro-
cess of developing or maturing.
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 79

In tandem Excerpts (1) and (2) are representative of an MD session and

illustrate the crucial part played by M to imbue the tool with functional rele-
vance while assessing D’s emergent conceptual understanding. As stated ear-
lier, M had introduced the tool using mediator-generated exemplars prior to
co-reviewing D’s narrative, but this structured activity was not enough to
render the symbolic tool relevant to D in authentic communication tasks. To
do so, M created the conditions through the co-revision process to guide D’s
thinking-with-tool ability. In Excerpt (1), M assessed D’s capacity to employ
the pedagogical materials as a cognitive tool to evaluate her own work by
guiding D with leading questions and prompts that helped D notice perti-
nent features of her writing that convey a suitable tense-aspect choice. The
co-thinking process revealed the difficulty that D experienced in both her
conceptual understanding of tense and aspect (i.e., viewing the present per-
fect simple as a bounded event) and its subsequent application. The infor-
mation gleaned from the interaction in Excerpt (1) informed M’s following
instructional moves in Excerpt (2). Notably, M drew the symbolic resource of
Figure 1 into the discussion and infused meaning into the imagistic represen-
tations of mental spaces and boundaries by connecting them to the text under
review. The mediational moves noted in both excerpts assisted D in coming to
understand how the symbolic tool functioned within an authentic task. The
relationship between the symbolic tool and her writing would not have been
otherwise noticed by D if she was left on her own to make sense of the peda-
gogical material and its use in her writing.

Foregrounding the assessment function of the ZPD dialectic: A focus

on DA
We now turn our attention to mediator-learner interactions in which the
assessment function of ZPD activity is foregrounded. Instructional guidance,
of course, is not erased but remains present as a part of the assessing-teaching
dialectic. In what follows, we examine two L2 DA interactions that occurred
during the post-study session in which M engaged with learners individually
to determine the extent to which they had internalized the symbolic tool and
were able to use it to regulate their control of the language. In the exchanges
we consider here, M is examining in particular learner understanding of the
terms ‘tense’ and ‘aspect’.
We begin with the first exchange between M and Victor (V), an adolescent
L1 Korean English learner with low-intermediate English proficiency enrolled
in a local area high school. V was in the process of reading aloud and answer-
ing, to the best of his ability, the multiple prompts that constituted the diag-
nostic assessment. It is important to note that V did not have access to the
pedagogical materials such as Figure 1 during the diagnostic assessment. We
80 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

enter the exchange with V verbalizing his understanding of the term tense
(line 58).

(3)
58 V: What is tense in English? ((reads from diagnostic
59 assessment))
60 tense is like part of the (.) time part of the past
61 tense (.) like future tense like present tense like
62 future tense like present tense like that
63 yeah I think like that
64 M: okay
65 V: How many verb tenses can you name? ((reads from
66 diagnostic assessment)) 
67 (.) two two or one (1)
68 M: what are they?
69 V: two (.) >what are they?< (.)
70 ((begins reading next prompt)) what is[
71 M: [what are they?
72 yeah what are they? (.) how many verb tenses can you
73 name?
74 V: my name?
75 M: no yeah no (.) how many can you say? (.) can you tell
76 me what they are? (.) you said one two (.) and what
77 are they?
78 V: oh is like I don’t know (.) my name?
79 M: no not name as in your name (.) my name but how many
80 can you- (.) how many can you list?
81 how many can you say?
82 V: oh (.) hmm (1)
83 M: and tell me what they are?
84 V: uhm is and like action verbs and just the tense (.)
85 gen- (.) general verb
86 M: okay
87 V: is are like that and yeah action verb I think

In lines 60–63, V responds to the self-posed question and provides some

salient information about how he has come to understand the concept of
tense. He equates tense to ‘time parts’ which seems to evoke the notion of
mental spaces and then proceeds to list the deictic tenses of past, present and
future. V then turns his attention to the next question (line 65) that probes V’s
ability to identify and articulate the tenses that constitute the English tense-
aspect system. The term ‘name’ confuses V as he initially identifies a quantity
(line 67: ‘two two or one’) to answer the question. It is interesting to note that
the quantities V mentions does not match the number of deictic tenses that
V had earlier articulated with little difficulty. In lines 69–82, V continues to
struggle to make sense of the question, even as M paraphrases the problematic
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 81

prompt (line 75: ‘how many can you say?’; lines 75–76: ‘can you tell me what
they are?’; line 80: ‘how many can you list?’) in terms that might be more com-
prehensible to V. In the concluding lines of the interaction, V seems to con-
flate the naming of tenses with the function of verbs (line 84: ‘action verbs’)
as well as the misguided belief that the question is asking V to provide a list of
conjugations (line 87: ‘is are like that’). It is important to note that M remains
quite implicit in the form of mediation he offers V, opting at this point not to
give hints or clues so as to place task ownership within the hands of V. Once
it is clear that V is unable to advance any further, M intervenes in Excerpt (4)
to provide slightly more explicit support to reveal V’s emergent understand-
ing of tense (lines 88–91).

(4)
88 M: so here you said what is tense? and you said time?
89 yeah right and when you say time parts what came to
90 your mind? did anything come to your mind when you
91 thought about time parts?
92 V: the perfect ten- the perfect future and past and the
93 perfect future- no the perfect past no- (1)
94 past perfect
95 M: mm hmm ((head nods))
96 V: past (.) and now - what is it? (.) present
97 M: present
98 V: and future
99 M: future (.) right?
100 so the past perfect the pa[st
101 V: [past
102 M: is there anything between the past and the present?
103 V: (5) present perfect
104 M: nice
105 V: yeah
106 M: yeah so the mental images or the mental spaces came to
107 mind then (.) mm hmm as you thought about- and so when
108 we think about tense we can think about the mental
109 spaces
110 V: mm hmm 

After summarizing the salient information of V’s verbalization from

Excerpt (4), M asks V to consider whether an image is called to mind by the
reference to ‘time parts’. We wish to point out that such a move would not fit
neatly into a hierarchy of implicit-to-explicit moves that characterizes much
DA research. Instead, the prompt to visualize the concept is a clear reference
to the instructional materials and in particular to Figure 1. In our view, M’s
move reflects the dialectical relationship between teaching and assessing in
that it reveals V’s conceptualization of tense while also guiding him to con-
82 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

sider how the imagery of mental spaces may help name the ‘time parts’ or
tenses of the English tense-aspect system. As the exchange continues, we see
that M’s prompt succeeds in leading V to contemplate the presence of com-
plex tenses containing the perfect, a label that was not articulated in Excerpt
(4).
Lines 92–94 document V actively formulating the labels associated with
the mental spaces of the English tense-aspect system as illustrated in the cen-
tral slide. Experimenting with various candidate tenses, V identifies the most
anterior temporal location (line 94: ‘past perfect tense’) to list the tenses that
he can name. V then moves systematically along the time continuum attrib-
uting a label to each of the tenses from the past to the future depicted in
Figure 1. V notably omits the present perfect tense, and so M prompts V to
contemplate which tense is situated between the past and present (line 102).
Following a long pause, V correctly identifies the present perfect. In the con-
cluding lines of Excerpt (4), M offers a summary to V of what they had co-
accomplished through conceptualizing the notion of tense using the symbolic
representation of mental spaces. Of course, we note that this statement on M’s
part might also serve as an additional form of mediation that made explicit
to V the relevant conceptual understanding that V had relied upon in carry-
ing out the task. It is not that M was providing instruction to introduce the
concept of mental spaces to V or explain how they might be relevant. Rather,
the mediational process here revealed, through M’s probing, that V had expe-
rienced difficulty making the connection between the term ‘tense’ and the
appropriate corresponding mental spaces, a connection to the visual repre-
sentation that ultimately allowed V to reach an appropriate reformulation.
The exchange concludes with M’s summative insights in lines 106-109 that
serve to diagnose and communicate to T his source of difficulty for further
reflection, an important tenet of L2 DA practice (Poehner, 2008). In summary,
Excerpts (3) and (4) document a process of graduated and contingent media-
tion to probe the extent of V’s knowledge of English tense, an understanding
that would not have been discovered if M had simply offered V the answer for
the sake of efficiently completing the task (see argument raised in Erlam, Ellis,
and Batstone, 2013).
In our second set of L2 DA interactions, M worked with Terry (T), an
adolescent L1 Korean English learner with intermediate English proficiency
attending a local high school, on developing his understanding and control
of English tense-aspect in his L2 writing. Both (5) and (6) took place during
the post-study session in which M asked T to perform a diagnostic assessment
of the metalinguistic knowledge that he had developed over the course of the
intervention. We pick up the interaction with T asked to define the concept
of aspect without access to the pedagogical materials.
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 83

(5)
111 T: and what is aspect in English:::? (3)  
112 (°oh I knew it oh°) (2) oh oh oh (.) 
113 it’s a thing how we see: the sentence structure I
114 think? 
115 no it was in the paper (.) uh I forgot

In Excerpt (5), T initially labors to recall a definition of grammatical aspect

until he arrives at the response ‘how we see the sentence structure’ (line 113).
While the notion of seeing a ‘sentence structure’ is vague, the response may
reflect in part the idea that grammatical aspect indicates an internal view of
an event or situation. What is clear is that T is uncertain about his answer,
but he accurately recalls that a response to the focal question is located in the
pedagogical materials, unavailable for him to view.
In Excerpt (6), M requests that T articulate the mental imagery evoked by
the term (lines 116–117) with concrete examples (lines 120–121). We argue
that M’s moves are intended to assess the extent to which T had internalized
the pedagogical materials, given that a clear picture of his thinking-with-tool
ability had not been disclosed in Excerpt (5), and that this would offer M a
possible clue to help resolve the difficulty.

(6)
116 M: and I wanted to know whether something has come to
117 your mind (°after°)?
118 T: uhm I think I said uhm how we see the sentence
119 structure 
120 M: okay can you give me an example of how we see
121 something?
122 T: °uh::° ((looks down toward diagnostic assessment)) (3)
123 M: and you can look around here? you know there’s- might
124 be examples in this (.) sheet ((points to diagnostic
125 assessment))
126 T: ((eyes scan diagnostic assessment)) (17)
127 uh I have no idea uhm ((eyes continue to scan
128 diagnostic assessment)) (16)
129 like uhm “Bill has lived in New York” 
130 M: mm hmm
131 T: we can see like uh Bill lived in New York uhm for few
132 days or few years
133 M:   (2) mm hmm2 (.) so let’s say we look at these two
134 sentences “He read the book last night” and “He was
135 reading the book last night”
136 uh:m (1) what (.) tense are they in?
137 T: they’res past
138 M: okay=
139 T: =this is E1 ((points to the sentence: he read the book
84 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

140 last night))

141 M: yeah
142 T: and this is E2 ((points to the sentence: he was
143 reading the book last night))
144 M: great (.) so when we talk about aspect (.) E1 is what?
145 T: uh foreground
146 M: foreground right? (.) but E1 is also past (.)
147 T: simple
148 M: past simple (.) and what’s E2?
149 T: uh::m past (6) °oh° (3) isn’t it just past?
150 M: yeah we can put another name for it however (.)
151 progressive
152 T: °pa-° oh↑ °past progressive°
153 M: yeah and so here- that’s aspect right? 
154 T: °yeah° 
155 M: yeah remember so we can only have- in each mental
156 space- we can only have two types of aspect right?
157 simple or progressive

In response to M, T attempts to locate an example of aspect from the text

of the diagnostic assessment before him. Following extended pauses (line 126:
17 seconds; line 128: 16 seconds), he reads an example of a present perfect
simple sentence from the diagnostic sheet and tries to analyze it by conveying
its meaning. Although T’s response is valid, it does not illustrate the meaning
of grammatical aspect. Consequently in his next move, M identifies a pair-
ing of past tense sentences, one written in the past simple and the other in the
past progressive, to create a context that better gauges T’s ability to identify
and discern his knowledge of grammatical aspect. In this way, M skillfully
shifted the conditions of the assessment asking T to contemplate the differ-
ences between a set of past tense exemplars (lines 133–135).
In line 136, M invites T to locate the exemplars in the correct tense, which
serves to diagnose if T was struggling with his conceptualization of tense
as well. Having successfully identified the tense of the exemplars (line 137:
‘they’res past’), T takes control of the floor labeling each sentence appropri-
ately as E1 (lines 139–140) and then E2 (lines 142–143). What still remains
uncertain is whether T understands how the two sentences differ in gram-
matical aspect, and so M proposes that T explicitly distinguish the sentences
according to this feature. In response, T accurately describes E1 as a fore-
grounded event,2 but it does not reveal whether the verb is simple or progres-
sive in nature.
In line 146, M offers a gap-fill prompt to help T isolate the missing aspectual
form for the E1 event frame. T supplies the correct name (line 147: ‘simple’),
and M moves to inquire about the aspectual feature associated with E2 (he
was reading the book last night). T’s response is filled with effort and delib-
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 85

eration but unable to identify the requisite answer on his own, he turns to M
requesting his support. In lines 150–151, M furnishes T with an explicit form
of mediation providing T with the aspect label, progressive, missing in his ini-
tial answer (line 149: ‘isn’t it just past?’). M concludes the interaction by articu-
lating what he believes to be T’s source of difficulty: specifically, T had trouble
recalling the two possibilities of grammatical aspect available to him in each
mental space (represented visually in Figure 1). Akin to lines 106–109, we hold
that M’s mediational move here is not instructional in the sense of introduc-
ing a new concept or modeling its use during meaning-making activity but
rather serves to share with T the potential area of confusion within a context
that foregrounds assessment, that is, the diagnosis of T’s understanding.
As detailed in Excerpts (3) to (6), the focus of ZPD activity targeted the
extent to which learners had internalized the symbolic tool to describe their
conceptual understanding of the terms tense and aspect. M tailored his sup-
port, through leading questions, hints, and gap-fill prompts so as to support the
ability of V and T to identify details of their explanation that lacked precision.
Feuerstein, Falik, and Feuerstein (2015) note that an important goal of interpsy-
chological functioning is to promote learner ability to use concept-related terms
in an accurate manner. The authors stress that the precise use of terminology
within learner verbalizations is crucial to thinking with symbolic tools.

Discussion and conclusion

While DA is already established in the L2 field, MD has only recently been
introduced and is less well known. As both are rooted in a reading of Vygotsky’s
discussions of the ZPD that understand it as activity co-constructed with
learners that is concerned foremost with psychological development and both
are influenced by Feuerstein’s research on the Mediated Learning Experience,
DA and MD may be confused, and it is worthwhile to disambiguate them. At
the same time, through engagement with teachers as well as researchers, we
have found that DA itself is frequently misunderstood as simply providing
assistance to help learners more successfully carry out classroom tasks. Not
only does such a characterization lose sight of the centrality of learner devel-
opment to ZPD activity, it also equates assessing with teaching. The argument
in L2 DA is indeed that assessing and teaching exist in relation to one another,
but this relation is not one of identity. Rather, as dialectic, they complete one
another and change together in a process of cooperative, interpsychological
functioning that is ZPD activity.
Our aim in this paper has been to document interactional episodes in
which primary attention was devoted to mediating learner understanding
and use of symbolic tools and others during which interactional focus aimed
86 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

to diagnose learner understanding of L2 concepts and their use to regulate

performance. We maintain that the former (MD) demonstrates how appro-
priate teaching is mindful of assessing learner understanding on an ongo-
ing basis to determine ensuing instructional decisions (see Excerpts 1 and 2)
while the latter (DA) shows that instructional concerns are co-present even
when mediator-learner dialogue emphasizes diagnosis (see Excerpts 3 to 6).
More specifically, the MD sessions documented M’s continued eye toward
assessing D’s difficulty with the elements of boundaries and mental spaces in
the rationale of her tense-aspect choice that informed M to direct D’s atten-
tion to these specific elements and to model and co-think with D a sound
justification for her revision. In the case of the DA sessions, M’s mediational
moves were oriented toward revealing the limits of learner understanding of
‘tense’ and ‘aspect’ while pushing both V and T to visualize the concepts so as
to construct a mental picture that would help guide them in formulating an
accurate explanation. As our analysis reveals, specific moves made by medi-
ator and learners as well as the presence and availability of other resources,
such as symbolic artifacts, are shaped according to whether the primary ori-
entation of the activity is assessing or teaching even as interpsychological
functioning, as explained by Vygotsky (1978), defines both.
As we conclude this paper, we would like to make additional observa-
tions that emerged from the larger project (Infante, 2016) and that are the
focus of ongoing research. MD brings into relief what Newman and Holz-
man (1993) have referred to as analyzing the ‘person-environment interface’
(p. 68). The term is premised on the authors’ analysis of Vygotsky’s theoreti-
cal insights that are drawn from dialectical materialism and put into meth-
odological practice with the intent of studying human psychology through
provoking its qualitative transformation. Applied to L2 STI research, quali-
tative transformation in learner conceptual thinking requires an analysis of
mediator, learner, symbolic artifact and educational tasks dialectically func-
tioning together. Drawing on classroom data (Infante, 2016) and the research
of Kinard and Kozulin (2008), we are endeavoring to document how MD
focuses on promoting symbolic tool use through a progression of activities
that targeted select cognitive functions (i.e., labeling, visualizing, comparing,
and materializing) within an L2 STI program. From this standpoint, learner
creativity and flexibility with L2 features necessitates mediation that asks
learners to engage in structured activities that model tool use and allow learn-
ers to practice said cognitive functions through verbalizations and/or depic-
tions to convey different meanings potentials.
In a related future study, we report on one learner’s capacity to extend
the original scope of the STI materials to include a graphic representation
that had not been previously presented to the learner. Through the prism of
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 87

Newman and Holzman’s (1993) proposal of tool-and-result as a Vygotskian

methodology, we argue that the modeling and controlled practice activities
of the conceptual materials informed by the MD interactional framework
were critical to the ESL learner’s ability to design an original conceptual rep-
resentation that actually elaborated the concepts as presented by the media-
tor. In our view, these future areas of empirical research provide an exciting
path forward to conceptualize a comprehensive SCT pedagogy that supports
L2 development.

Notes
1. The scholarship of Radden and Dirven (2007) and Gánem-Gutiérrez and Harun (2011)
inform the design of the event frames, which includes the arrangement of the colored vertical
and horizontal lines therein.
2. Although not discussed in this excerpt, foregrounded events are deemed telic in
nature (i.e., they have an end boundary) and push the main storyline forward, whereas back-
grounded events are typically non-telic (i.e., do not have an end boundary) and function to
provide supplementary details to a narrative. The distinction was an important point for V to
raise, and one that is given greater attention later in the diagnostic assessment. Specifically, the
second to last question of the diagnostic assessment prompts learners to articulate the back-
ground/foreground distinction as follows: ‘How do tense and aspect work together to either
foreground events or background events in a narrative?’

About the authors

Paolo Infante is Assistant Professor of TESOL at Minnesota State University,
Mankato. His research employs Vygotskian theory to understand and promote
processes of second language development within different language learning
contexts. He teaches undergraduate and graduate TESOL courses for inservice
and preservice educators seeking K-12 licensure.

Matthew E. Poehner is Associate Professor of World Languages Education and

Applied Linguistics at the Pennsylvania State University. His research concerns
Sociocultural Theory as a framework for understanding instructed second lan-
guage development and as a basis for educational practices such as Dynamic
Assessment, Concept-based Language Instruction, and Mediated Development.

Appendix
Transcription conventions are as follows:

((comments)) transcriber’s comments, includes non-verbal behavior

? rising intonation, a question
↑ denotes marked rising shift in intonation
88 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

- truncated speech, self-correction

[] overlapping talk by two speakers
(.) a pause of less than one second
(#) length of pauses in seconds
°yes° quieter than normal talk, whisper
= latched speech, no gap between two turns
__ speech expressed with emphasis
>< talk speeds up

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Tense and aspect. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics, 5789–5794. New York: John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002
/9781405198431.wbeal1195
Brown, A. and Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In
J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication and Cognition. Vygotskian Perspec-
tives, 273–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017
/s0272263100007889
Budoff, M. and Friedman, M. (1964). ‘Learning potential’ as an assessment approach to
the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Consulting Psychology 28: 434–439. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0040631
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teach-
er’s Course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587964
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learn-
ing and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, and S. M. Miller (Eds),
Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 39–64. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840975.004
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. and Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two
approaches compared. System 41: 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004
Fauconnier, G. (1999). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In
M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, 258–280. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S. and Falik, L. H. (2010). Beyond Smarter: Mediated learning
and the Brain’s Capacity for Change. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and
images. Soviet Psychology 27 (2): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405270345
Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological
investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30: 60–80. https://doi
.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405300460
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. and Harun, H. (2011). Verbalisation as a mediational tool for
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 89

understanding tense-aspect marking in English: An application of Concept-Based

Instruction. Language Awareness 20: 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010
.551125
Holzman, L. (2009) Vygotsky at Work and Play. London: Routledge.
Infante, P. (2016). Mediated Development: Promoting L2 Conceptual Development through
Interpsychological Activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA.
Infante, P. (2018). Mediated Development: Promoting learner internalization of L2 con-
cepts through cognitive-process focused activities. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, and
M. Swain (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Development, 229–246. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747
Kinard, Sr., J. T. and Kozulin, A. (2008). Rigorous Mathematical Thinking. Conceptual For-
mation in the Mathematics Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814655
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B.
Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, and S. M. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cul-
tural Context, 15–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017
/cbo9780511840975.003
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Appli-
cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the
second language classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Lan-
guage Teaching and Learning vol. 2, 303–318. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836507.ch19
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imper-
ative in L2 Education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the past into
the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1
.49.55872
Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Lan-
guage Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin
/amm027
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A
Journal of Human Behavior 31: 1–16.
Masuda, K. and Arnett, C. (2015). Cognitive linguistics, sociocultural theory and lan-
guage teaching: Introduction. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, and A. Labarca (Eds), Cogni-
tive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory: Applications for Second and Foreign Language
Teaching, 1–21. Boston, MA: DeGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514442-003
Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R., Myles, M. and Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning Theories (3rd
ed). London: Hodder Arnold.
90 Realizing the ZPD in Second Language Education

Negueruela, E. (2003). A sociocultural approach to the teaching and learning of second lan-
guages: Systemic-theoretical instruction and L2 development. Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second lan-
guage development. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (Eds), Sociocultural Theory and
the Teaching of Second Languages, 189–227. London: Equinox.
Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist. London:
Routledge.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding
and Promoting Second Language Development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E. (2016). Sociocultural Theory and the dialectical-materialist approach to
L2 development. Language and Sociocultural Theory 3 (2): 133–152. https://doi.org/10
.1558/lst.v3i2.32869
Poehner, M. E. and Infante, P. (2015). Mediated Development as inter-psychological activ-
ity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory 2: 161–183. https://doi.org/10
.1558/lst.v2i2.26982
Poehner, M. E., and Infante, P. (2017). Mediated Development: A Vygotskian approach to
transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly 51(2), 332–357. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tesq.308
Poehner, M. E. and van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Frames of interaction in Dynamic
Assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Edu-
cation: Principles, Policy and Practice 18 (2): 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x
.2011.567116
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Volume 2. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sternberg, R. J. and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing. The Nature and Measure-
ment of Learning Potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical
Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203876039
Tsagari, D. and Csepes, I. (2011). Classroom Based Language Assessment (Language Test-
ing and Evaluation). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2012). Developing Sociopragmatic Capacity in a Second Language
through Concept-Based Instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsyl-
vania State University, University Park.
van der Veer, J. and Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A Quest for Synthesis.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1, Problems of General
 Paolo Infante and Matthew E. Poehner 91

Psychology, Including the Volume Thinking and Speech. R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton
(Eds). New York: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1086/356870
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 5, Child Psychology.
R. W. Rieber (Ed.). New York, Plenum.