Activating the ZPD: Mutual

Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision

MARÍA C. M. DE GUERRERO OLGA S. VILLAMIL
Inter American University of Puerto Rico Inter American University of Puerto Rico
English Department English Department
P.O. Box 191293 P.O. Box 191293
San Juan, PR 00919–1293 San Juan, PR 00919–1293
Email: mguerre@inter.edu Email: ovillam@inter.edu

Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development and its related scaffolding metaphor
serve as the theoretical basis for the study of peer collaboration in the English as a Second
Language (ESL) writing classroom. The purpose of the study was to observe the mechanisms
by which strategies of revision take shape and develop in the interpsychological space created
when 2 learners are working in their respective ZPDs. A microgenetic approach was adopted
to analyze the interaction produced by 2 intermediate ESL college students (a “reader” and a
“writer”) as they worked collaboratively in revising a narrative text written by one of them.
Although in the first half of the revision session the reader played a crucial role as mediator,
both reader and writer became active partners in the revision task with guided support moving
reciprocally between each other. In general, results showed that in second language (L2) peer
revision scaffolding may be mutual rather than unidirectional.

IN THIS ARTICLE, VYGOTSKY’S (1978, 1986) THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT

concept of the zone of proximal development
(ZPD) serves as the theoretical basis for the study
of peer collaboration in the English as a Second
Language (ESL) writing classroom. The ZPD
concept has been used in conjunction with the
notion of scaffolding, which refers to those sup-
portive behaviors by which an expert can help a
novice learner achieve higher levels of regula-
tion. In this study, we wanted to alter the typical
novice-expert ZPD scenario by bringing together
2 novice writers in a revision task. In particular,
we wanted to observe the mechanisms by which
strategies of revision take shape and develop in
the interpsychological space created when 2
learners are working in their respective ZPDs. A
microgenetic approach—one in which moment-
to-moment changes in the participants’ behavior
are noted and examined—was used in order to
analyze the interaction generated by 2 intermedi-
ate ESL college students as they worked collabo-
ratively in revising a text.
The Modern Language Journal, 84, i, (2000)
0026-7902/00/51–68 $1.50/0
©2000 The Modern Language Journal
AND SCAFFOLDING
In our efforts to apply a research framework
that would help us understand “how social inter-
actions . . . can contribute to writing develop-
ment” (Di Pardo & Freedman, 1988, p. 122), we
have used Vygotsky’s theories of learning and de-
velopment, in particular his notion of ZPD and
his microgenetic approach to data. As is well
known, Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) concept of ZPD
establishes two developmental levels in the
learner: the actual developmental level, which is
determined by what the learner can do alone,
and the potential level of development, which
can be established by observing what the learner
can do when assisted by an adult or more capable
peer. Thus, Vygotsky recognized the contribution
that others, the social medium, make to individ-
ual learning. For Vygotsky (1978),
an essential feature of learning is that it creates the
zone of proximal development; that is, learning awak-
ens a variety of internal developmental processes that
are able to operate only when the child is interacting
with people in his environment and in cooperation
with his peers. Once these processes are internalized,
52
they become part of the child’s independent develop-
mental achievement. (p. 90)
In connection to the ZPD, Wertsch (1979) has
proposed that, in the transition from interpsy-
chological to intrapsychological functioning, the
learner moves through stages of other-regulation
to complete self-regulation, the stage when he or
she is capable of independent problem solving.
A concept associated with the ZPD is “scaffold-
ing,” which was first used by Vygotsky and Luria
in reference to how adults introduce children to
cultural means (cited in van der Veer & Valsiner,
1991, p. 226) and was later popularized by Bruner
(1978) as a metaphor for a mother’s verbal efforts
to maintain conversation with a child and, indi-
rectly, to promote language acquisition. Accord-
ing to Bruner (1978), the mother’s scaffolding
behavior is characterized by five important fea-
tures: (a) reducing the complexity of the task,
(b) getting the child’s attention and keeping it
focused, (c) offering models, (d) extending the
scope of the immediate situation, and (e) provid-
ing support so that the child moves forward and
does not slip back.
The metaphor of scaffolding has been ex-
tended in educational psychology to refer to the
process by which tutors—parents, caretakers,
teachers, or more expert partners—help someone
less skilled solve a problem. According to Wood,
Bruner, and Ross (1976), tutorial interactions are
crucial in fostering development in the human
being. These authors hypothesized that successful
scaffolding is characterized by six actions on the
tutor’s part: (a) recruiting the tutee’s attention,
(b) reducing degrees of freedom in the task in
order to make it manageable, (c) keeping direc-
tion in terms of the goals, (d) marking critical
features, (e) controlling frustration, and (f) mod-
eling solutions. Although probably intuitive, these
actions demonstrate a high degree of skill and fine
tuning on the tutor’s part. To be successful, the
tutor must operate on an “implicit theory of the
learner’s acts” (p. 99). By this, the authors meant
that the tutor has not only a theory of how the task
or problem is to be completed, but also a theory of
the tutee’s performance. These two theories allow
the tutor to generate effective feedback as the
tutee proceeds with the task. It appears, then, that
successful scaffolding depends on how skillfully
the tutor manages the interaction between task
and tutee’s demands.
A more recent application of the concept of
scaffolding is Lidz’s (1991) scale for measuring
mediated instruction. This scale is based on Vy-
gotsky’s notion of ZPD and Feuerstein’s work on
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
dynamic assessment.1 As Lidz explained, there
are two types of learning: direct and mediated. In
the direct learning experience, the child learns
alone without assistance from tutors. The medi-
ated learning experience, on the other hand,
is defined as the interactional processes between the
developing human organism and an experienced,
intentioned adult who, by interposing himself be-
tween the child and external resources of stimula-
tion, “mediates” the world to the child by framing,
selecting, focusing, and feeding back environmental
experiences in such a way as to produce in him appro-
priate learning sets and habits. (Feuerstein, as cited
in Lidz, 1991, p. 67)
The concept of scaffolding, which Lidz used to
characterize mediated learning experience, “de-
scribes the mediator’s adjusting the complexity
and maturity of the teaching interaction to facili-
tate the child’s mastery of the task; providing sup-
port when necessary; and providing encourage-
ment and prompts to the child to move ahead
when ready” (p. 80). On this theoretical founda-
tion, Lidz constructed a scale for identifying and
evaluating an adult’s mediating behavior when
actively interacting with a child in a learning expe-
rience. The scale consists of 12 component behav-
iors to be observed in the adult (see Table 1). A
potential use of Lidz’s scale is to observe any type
of mediated teacher-learner or learner-learner in-
teraction in the language classroom. In our study
we will apply Lidz’s terms, as well as others men-
tioned in the scaffolding literature, to the obser-
vation of peer interaction in the writing class-
room.
The ZPD and scaffolding are two essential con-
cepts in sociocultural theory, a system of ideas
based on the work of Vygotsky and colleagues that
looks at learning as a fundamentally social act,
embedded in a specific cultural environment.
(For further information on sociocultural theory,
see Kozulin, 1998; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Moll,
1990; Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1985, 1991.) Central
to sociocultural theory is the idea that human
mental activity is rooted in the discursive practices
of the community. In particular, the development
of higher forms of thinking and the acquisition of
certain complex skills are thought to be initiated
and shaped by social interaction. Not all social
encounters lead to development. For intellectual
growth to occur, interactions need to operate
within a ZPD framework, that is, within the con-
text of scaffolded mediated assistance. Crucial to
this type of assistance is semiotic mediation, with
language as the main semiotic tool of mediation.
By means of language and the exercise of certain
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil 53
TABLE 1
Lidz’s (1991) Twelve Component Behaviors of Adult Mediating Instruction

1. Intentionality: Consciously attempting to influence the child’s actions. This involves making efforts to
keep the interaction going, engage the child’s attention, inhibit impulsive behavior, and maintain goal
orientation.
2. Meaning: Promoting understanding by highlighting for the child what is important to notice, marking
relevant differences, elaborating detail, and providing related information.
3. Transcendence: Helping the child make associations to related past experiences and project himself or
herself into the future.
4. Joint regard: Trying to see the activity through the child’s eyes; looking at an object that has been
brought into focus by the child; using “we” to talk about the experience.
5. Sharing of experiences: Telling the child about an experience or thought that the mediator had and of
which the child is not aware.
6. Task regulation: Manipulating the task to facilitate problem solving; stating a principle of solution or in-
ducing strategic thinking in the child.
7. Praise/Encouragement: Communicating to the child, verbally or nonverbally, that he or she has done some-
thing good; keeping high the child’s self-esteem.
8. Challenge: Maintaining the activity within the limits of the child’s ZPD. This implies challenging the
child to reach beyond his or her current level of functioning, but not so much that the child will feel
overwhelmed and get discouraged.
9. Psychological differentiation: Keeping in mind that the task is the child’s and not the mediator’s; that the
goal is for the child to have a learning experience, not the adult. Avoiding competitiveness with the
child.
10. Contingent responsivity: The ability to read the child’s behavior and to respond appropriately. It can be
compared to a well-coordinated dance between two partners who are very much in tune to one another.
11. Affective involvement: Expressing warmth to the child; giving the child a sense of caring and enjoyment in
the task.
12. Change: Communicating to the child that he or she has made some change or improved in some way.
Note. This table represents a synthesis of information from Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment, by Carol S.
Lidz, 1991, New York: Guilford Press. Copyright 1991 by The Guilford Press. Adapted with permission.

fundamental scaffolding behaviors, participants
in the interactions achieve a state of intersubjec-
tivity (Rommetveit, 1985), the intermental point
of fusion at which separate minds come to share a
common perspective and an equal degree of com-
mitment to the task. Establishing and maintaining
intersubjectivity are essential for development to
occur within the ZPD.
SCAFFOLDING FROM A L2 PERSPECTIVE
In their attempt to establish connections be-
tween classroom interaction and second lan-
guage (L2) development, researchers have be-
gun to look at the mechanisms of scaffolded help
in the ZPD within L2 scenarios. Ohta (1995) de-
fined the ZPD concept in L2 acquisition as “the
difference between the L2 learner’s developmen-
tal level as determined by independent language
use, and the higher level of potential develop-
ment as determined by how language is used in
collaboration with a more capable interlocutor”
(p. 96). Scaffolding in the L2 would thus consist
of those supportive behaviors, adopted by the
more expert partner in collaboration with the L2
learner, that might facilitate the learner’s prog-
ress to a higher level of language development.
Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) identified some im-
portant characteristics of scaffolding in L2 con-
texts. According to these authors (p. 468), effec-
tive intervention on the tutor’s part should be
“graduated” (sensitive to the learner’s level of
help required), “contingent” (offered only when
needed), and “dialogic” (achieved through the
medium of dialogue). In their study, Aljaafreh
and Lantolf looked at how negative feedback (er-
ror correction) was negotiated in tutor-learner
interactions. Their findings suggest that there are
different ZPDs for different learners and differ-
ent structures, that both implicit and explicit
feedback may be necessary depending on to what
extent the learner notices an error, and that too
much other-regulation may inhibit self-regula-
tion. As van Lier (1996) pointed out, pedagogical
scaffolding is strategic behavior determined by
close and continuous scrutiny of what is easy and
difficult for the learner, guided by “a long-term
sense of direction and continuity, a local plan of
action, and a moment-to-moment interactional
decision-making” (p. 199).
54
Another example of the application of the
concept of scaffolding to L2 acquisition is Adair-
Hauck and Donato’s (1994) study of a tutorial
lesson in French in which the authors’ purpose
was to discover the discourse strategies and in-
teractional dynamics of teaching within the ZPD.
Responsive instruction in the ZPD, the authors
observed, encourages skill-using before skill-get-
ting (in other words, performance should pre-
cede competence) and requires finely tuned lan-
guage to assist performance. As the ZPD lesson
progresses, the expert’s discourse strategies be-
come less directive and less explicit in response
to the learner’s gradual assumption of task con-
trol. Throughout the lesson, intersubjectivity
emerges between teacher and learner; in other
words, teacher and learner move from two sepa-
rate subjective worlds (“You” and “I”), with quite
different definitions of the task situation, to a
“temporarily established we” (p. 548), reflecting
a shared perspective of the instructional situ-
ation.
Whereas studies on scaffolding have tradition-
ally examined tutor-learner situations, Donato
(1994) explored the notion of “mutual scaffold-
ing” among L2 learners. His purpose was to ob-
serve to what extent 3 novice students of French,
working collaboratively on a task, could posi-
tively influence each other’s development in the
foreign language. To analyze the data, Donato
used Wood et al.’s (1976) features of scaffolding
and a microgenetic Vygotskyan approach. His
findings showed that the 3 learners, regardless
of their linguistic abilities, were not only able to
offer each other scaffolded help but were also
able to grow linguistically beyond their own in-
dependent performance. Ohta (1995), men-
tioned above, also studied peer scaffolding in
the ZPD. As in Donato’s case, her analysis of
classroom interaction between a pair of Japanese
language learners, one more advanced than the
other, evidences the beneficial effects of peer
collaboration on language development. Not
only did her less advanced learner profit from
the other’s assistance, the more advanced
learner had an opportunity to adjust, refine, and
experiment with her own language through the
interaction. Finally, researchers Antón and Di-
Camilla, in their study of scaffolding during col-
laborative writing tasks in the Spanish L2 class-
room, highlighted the importance of repetition,
private speech, and the first language (L1) in
the students’ discourse as powerful tools of se-
miotic mediation (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Di-
Camilla & Antón, 1997).2
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
MICROGENESIS: GRASPING THE PROCESS
IN FLIGHT
In their approach to interactive data, the L2
scaffolding studies reviewed above (Adair-Hauck
& Donato, 1994; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Antón
& DiCamilla, 1998; DiCamilla & Antón, 1997; Do-
nato, 1994; Ohta, 1995) share a qualitative, inter-
pretive, case-study perspective on L2 instruction
that allows the observation of language develop-
ment at the very moment it is thought to occur.
For Vygotsky (1978), a thorough, minute analysis
of psychological processes is essential in the study
of development:
Any psychological process, whether the development
of thought or voluntary behavior, is a process under-
going changes right before one’s eyes. The develop-
ment in question can be limited to a few seconds, or
even fractions of seconds. . . . Under certain condi-
tions it becomes possible to trace this development.
(p. 61)
This type of “microgenetic” analysis, as Wertsch
(1985, p. 55) referred to it, is crucial in under-
standing how psychological processes are
formed. Through microgenesis, it is possible, as
Vygotsky (1978) himself elegantly put it, to “grasp
the process in flight” (p. 68). In this study, we
adopted a microgenetic approach, that is, one in
which moment-to-moment changes in the partici-
pants’ behavior were noted and examined, in or-
der to analyze the interaction produced by 2 in-
termediate ESL college students as they worked
collaboratively in revising a narrative text written
by one of them.3
STUDIES ON L2 PEER REVISION
As the popularity of peer revision in L2 writing
classes has increased, so has the number of em-
pirical studies conducted on the application of
the technique. By now, many different aspects of
L2 peer revision have been investigated through a
variety of both qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods: (a) the impact of peer revision on subsequent
drafts (Chaudron, 1984; Connor & Asenavage,
1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Mendonça &
Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Villamil
& Guerrero, 1998); (b) the effects of training on
peer response (Rothschild & Klingenberg, 1990;
Stanley, 1992); (c) the quality of peer responses
(Caulk, 1994); (d) the students’ ability to identify
areas in need of revision (Nelson & Murphy,
1992b); (e) the student stances toward peers’
texts (Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992);
(f) the analysis of talk during peer interaction
from task, social, and cultural points of view (Car-
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
son & Nelson, 1994; Guerrero & Villamil, 1994;
Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Nelson & Murphy, 1992a,
Villamil & Guerrero, 1996); (g) the affective ad-
vantages of peer feedback (Zhang, 1995); and
(h) the students’ perception of effectiveness of
peer response (Nelson & Carson, 1998).
A review of these studies suggests that certain
students’ attitudes and behaviors are more facili-
tative than others in providing support during
the peer revision process. Consistently, the stud-
ies show that collaborative (or cooperative)
stances are more productive than authoritative or
prescriptive attitudes (Guerrero & Villamil, 1994;
Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumber-
ger, 1992; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Nelson & Mur-
phy, 1993). Collaborative stances seem to be char-
acterized by an emphasis on negotiating ideas
and making meaning throughout the inter-
actions, by peers trying to see the text through
the writer’s eyes, and by an atmosphere of mutual
respect in which feedback is allowed to flow freely
from writer to reader and vice versa. As we ex-
plained in an earlier work (Guerrero and Vil-
lamil, 1994), in collaborative peer interactions
there is an interpsychological effort to achieve
intersubjectivity, a state of equal commitment to
the task in which roles (reader/writer, novice/ex-
pert) are exchanged between the participants.
Furthermore, self-regulated partners offering as-
sistance to other-regulated members demon-
strate “self-assurance . . . a genuine desire to help
the partner complete the task successfully, and
willingness to share knowledge” (Guerrero & Vil-
lamil, 1994, p. 492). Showing affectivity; making
effective use of discourse strategies such as advis-
ing, eliciting, and requesting clarification; and
using the L1 on a contingent basis to maintain
control of the task (Villamil & Guerrero, 1996)
are other behaviors that have been identified as
facilitative in providing peer support during revi-
sion. The present study constitutes an effort to
probe further into the mechanisms of scaffolded
help in peer revision. Even though some progress
has been made since Stone (1993) pointed out
the need to specify the communicative mecha-
nisms that characterize scaffolding, further ex-
ploration is needed to identify what specific be-
haviors make scaffolding effective in L2 peer
revision.
THE STUDY
The data for this study are part of a large re-
search project involving 40 dyadic interactions,
aspects of which have already been published in
Guerrero and Villamil (1994) and Villamil and
55
Guerrero (1996, 1998). For the present study, we
selected one dyad’s interaction to illustrate the
microgenesis of socially based individual revision
skills. The main reason for selecting this particu-
lar dyad was that their interaction was sufficiently
rich and varied to allow the observation of a wide
range of behaviors that may occur during ZPD
activation.
The participants were 2 male intermediate ESL
college learners, native speakers of Spanish, who
were enrolled in an ESL communication skills
course that emphasized the development of writ-
ing. As part of the normal routine of activities in
that course, the students participated in two revi-
sion sessions during which pairs of students re-
vised a composition written by one of them. The
data for analysis come from one of those sessions,
which was based on a narrative piece whose topic
was “Narrate an experience that taught you some-
thing about yourself or an experience that made
you reflect on life.” Drafts of this narrative piece
were written in class and collected by the teacher
before the actual revision session. Pairs were
formed at random in advance of the session and
two external raters determined which of the stu-
dents in each pair would have his or her compo-
sition revised (the student whose composition
“needed more revision”). Thus the “writer” and
the “reader” of the composition were selected,
but the students were not explicitly informed of
these writer/reader roles. The pair of students
was simply instructed to revise the draft and to
record all their comments (whether in English or
Spanish) on a tape recorder provided for this
occasion. The students were given a revision
sheet on which to take notes or make written
comments and were encouraged to focus first on
content and organization and then on language
use and mechanics. The writer was further in-
structed to read aloud his composition before
starting the joint revision process. After the revi-
sion session, the writer worked at home on a final
draft of his composition and turned it in a week
later. (Further information on the methodology
of the research study from which this dyadic in-
teraction is extracted is available in Guerrero &
Villamil, 1994; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996, 1998.)
The focus of analysis was the dyad’s audiotaped
conversation, transcribed to the written mode.
Additional sources of information for the study
were the writer’s first draft, which was jointly re-
vised during the revision session, and the writer’s
final draft, submitted 1 week after the peer revi-
sion session. To conduct the analysis, the tran-
scribed interaction was segmented into episodes,
units of discourse during which the students were
56
on task, that is, dealing with one discrete trouble-
source or a connected series of troublesources, or
talking about the task, that is, discussing task pro-
cedures. Following Nystrand (1986), a trouble-
source was defined as a perceived or potential
problem, error, or deficiency in the text. Sixteen
episodes, comprising the interaction from begin-
ning to end, were thus identified. Each episode
was subjected to microgenetic analysis, that is,
interactions were scrutinized in order to observe
(a) moment-to-moment changes in behavior that
might signal development of revision skills
through mediated assistance and (b) the scaffold-
ing mechanisms employed by the students in
helping each other revise the composition. Scaf-
folding was operationally defined in this study as
“those supportive behaviors by which one partner
in a semiotically mediated interactive situation
can help another achieve higher levels of compe-
tence and regulation.” To help us identify and
understand scaffolding mechanisms in the data,
we drew from previously established categories
and features of assistance in the ZPD (mainly
those in Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Bruner, 1978;
Lidz, 1991; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996; and Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976). As a final word on our data
analysis procedure, it should be noted that, for
the most part, the students’ interaction was in
Spanish, with English used occasionally for read-
ing or referring to different parts of the written
text. To facilitate understanding by our readers,
an English version of the episodes was produced
and is presented here.
The following notation system was used in the
transcripts:
italics italics are employed to
cite a letter, word, or
phrase as a linguistic
example, including
Spanish words
[brackets] brackets enclose actual
Spanish words said
by students
(parentheses) explanation by authors
... sequence of dots
indicates a pause
boldface words were said in
English (text which is
not in boldface
was said in Spanish)
“quotation marks” quotation marks
indicate participants are
reading from the text
The analysis of the students’ interaction, epi-
sode by episode, including the initial reading
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
aloud phase, follows in the next section. For rea-
sons of space, two of the transcripts (episodes 9
and 12) are not presented, and some have under-
gone deletions of nonessential parts.
MICROGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
As instructed, the students started their inter-
action with the writer reading aloud his paper to
the reader, prior to revising the text. Once the
required reading aloud was over, the students
began to operationalize the task to make it man-
ageable. This process was observed in their tacit
acceptance of a role—as reader or writer. The
reader’s statement, “First I am going to read your
composition,” suggests that he wanted to familiar-
ize himself with the content of the piece to have
an idea of what the task entailed and what was
expected of him. The reader’s later an-
nouncement, “We are now going to revise,” indi-
cates that he assumed joint responsibility for re-
vising the text. Another sign of the students’
operationalization of the task was their talk about
the task—their “metatalk,” as Brooks and Donato
(1994) referred to it. Comments such as, “Do we
have to use red ink to revise?” and “Do we have to
revise everything including punctuation marks?”
showed that discussing procedures was essential
in order for the students to understand require-
ments in their own terms and gain control of the
task. All of the students’ comments in this initial
phase of the interaction (and in most of the fol-
lowing episodes) were in Spanish, the students’
L1. Their choice of language to conduct the in-
teraction constitutes yet another sign of the stu-
dents’ efforts at task operationalization. For
them, Spanish was a linguistic resource that facili-
tated communication and achievement of task
goals. To summarize, in this brief pre-revising
stage we see the students’ efforts at appropriating
the task; in other words, not until the task had
become meaningful for them and roles and re-
sponsibilities had been assigned could they pro-
ceed with their work.
As early as in Episode 1, we notice some signs
of scaffolding behavior: recruiting interest in the
task, marking critical aspects or discrepancies (Wood,
Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Donato, 1994), and inten-
tionality (Lidz, 1991).
Episode 1
1. R (Reader): You have to leave a space, I think.
2. W (Writer): What?
3. R: Before starting you have to indent, I
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
don’t know how to say that in English .
. . . That’s an i, isn’t it? It looks like a d.
4. W: Yes, sometimes I write too fast.
5. R: Is this an i?
6. W: Yes, an i.
7. R: Yeah, it looks like a d and another d.
8. W: Yes, now I see that they look like that.
9. R: Right?
10. W: You are going to find they are all like
that . . .
In this episode, the reader takes the lead and,
assuming a tutor’s role, calls the writer’s attention
by pointing and marking two critical features of
the writer’s text—lack of paragraph indentation
(lines 1 and 3) and illegible handwriting (line 3).
The writer’s remark “now I see” (line 8) denotes
the illuminating effect the reader’s pointing and
marking has had on him. Comments made by the
reader (“You have to leave a space”) show a con-
scious effort on his part as mediator to influence
the performance of the tutee—the writer in this
case. This specific behavior reveals intentionality
(Lidz 1991), a feature whose main goal is to pro-
mote self-regulation in the other. In response, the
writer becomes involved in the task. His attention
is engaged, and he is drawn into explaining and
justifying his behavior (lines 4, 6, and 8). In the
process, the writer gains awareness of his per-
formance, without which he would not be able to
progress with the task. His ZPD has been “acti-
vated,” and he is now susceptible to advancement
through his partner’s intervention. Evidence of
the writer’s improved performance is to be found
in his final draft, in which he actually indented
paragraphs as suggested by the reader.
In Episode 2, the troublesource is the writer’s
use of contractions in the text: “When two of my
friends and I went to Utuado to practice some
rapeling [sic], I didn’t thought that I’ll come back
with a better appreciation of Puerto Rico.”
Episode 2
11. R: Some rules in English, I think, I am not
sure, when you write, you shouldn’t . . .
12. W: Uh hmm . . .
13. R: You shouldn’t abbreviate, use contrac-
tions . . .
14. W: I know what you mean . . .
15. R: You understand? You shouldn’t write I
didn’t. You should write I did not. You
can check in a book and you’ll find no
contractions.
16. W: Yeah, but if I write it like that, I find it
somewhat, I don’t know, unnatural.
57
17. R: That’s because one is used to write like
that.
Here the reader is providing other-regulation
by instructing or giving a minilesson (Villamil &
Guerrero, 1996) on contractions to the writer.
The reader draws on his own knowledge of
learned rules and generalizations to direct the
writer explicitly. The reader’s tone is authorita-
tive, and the writer acquiesces to his peer’s sug-
gestions even though he does not appear to be
completely convinced: “I find it somewhat, I
don’t know, unnatural” (line 16). This remark
shows that the writer possesses some knowledge
of L2 discourse conventions, but nonetheless he
accepts his peer’s suggestion (and ultimately in-
corporates this revision in his final draft). In-
structing or giving minilessons is a type of scaf-
folding mechanism by means of which students
exteriorize their expertise and offer each other
knowledge about language. In this interaction, it
is the reader who resorts to instructing in order
to take control of those areas in which, presum-
ably, he feels expert.
In Episode 3, the writer lets himself be guided
by his peer in the use of would (instead of will) as
a modal: “. . . that I’ll come back with a better
appreciation of Puerto Rico.” The reader regu-
lates the task by resorting again to instructing and
making contingent use of the L1 (Aljaafreh &
Lantolf, 1994; Antón & DiCamilla, 1998).
Episode 3
18. R: Here it says “I didn’t thought that I’ll
come back.” It says that I will come
back [regresaré], that you would come
back [regresarías], you mean, right?
19. W: Exactly.
20. R: That is, you mean, that when you went
to Utuado to practice rappeling, you
did not think you would come back
with a good appreciation of Puerto
Rico, so it is would . . . . “We’d come
back,” would come back [regresaría].
21. W: It’s that . . . grammar kills me, in Span-
ish and English.
22. R: Remember that would corresponds to
the ending ría in (Spanish) verbs.
23. W: Ah. . . . That’s something new I
learned.
24. R: I’ll come back [regresaré] you are going
to do it in the future.
25. W: Hmm . . .
26. R: I’ll come back, you’ll come back, he’ll
come back [yo regresaré, tu regresarás, el
58
regresará] with a better appreciation of
Puerto Rico. It’s I would come back, [re-
gresaría], because you went back in that
moment.
As the reader offers his minilesson on conjugat-
ing verbs in the conditional, the writer listens
attentively and responds, “It’s that . . . grammar
kills me, in Spanish and English” (line 21) and
“That’s something new I learned” (line 23), ac-
knowledging his limitations but also evidencing
learning of an important grammar rule, neces-
sary in his L2 development. (The revision was
incorporated into the final draft.) Through the
use of instructing as a scaffolding strategy, the
reader is regulating task (Lidz, 1991), that is, dis-
playing his own heuristics for dealing with the
task and thus equipping his partner with rules
that he might transfer to other situations. The
reader’s contingent use of the L1 to explain the
different verb endings is a very important strategy
of semiotic mediation. In fact, the skillful han-
dling of both languages on the part of the reader
serves to highlight important connections be-
tween one language and the other that the writer
may need to remember in the future.
During Episode 4, the students’ attention is
focused on a verb tense: “We searched for a
bridge to hang on, and ended in one that has
been recently constructed for a future highway.”
Episode 4
27. R: “We searched for a bridge to hang on”
and ended in one that . . .
28. W: and we ended in one that has been
constructed . . .
29. R: What do you mean here?
30. W: That the bridge that we found was that
one . . .
31. R: There’s no need for . . . I wonder . . .
32. W: No, because I am saying that we were
looking for a bridge where we could
hang on and ended in one that was
recently constructed.
33. R: That had been recently constructed.
34. W: Uh hmm . . .
35. R: So it’s had, that had [había], that had
been recently constructed. . . .
In this episode, the reader resorts to meaning
(Lidz, 1991). By asking “What do you mean
here?” (line 29), he directs the writer’s attention
to what is important to notice (the incorrect use
of the present perfect) thus forcing the writer to
elaborate on the intended meaning and, in the
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
process, to use a different verb form. When the
writer comes up with was, the reader offers had
(the correct alternative). The writer seems to
agree with the solution, and the verb is—tempo-
rarily—corrected on the draft. Unfortunately, the
writer chooses not to adopt the proposed form
and opts for his own suggestion in the final ver-
sion, showing possible signs of regression, an as-
pect of peer interaction within the ZPD that will
be addressed later on.4
Episode 5 illustrates two important scaffolding
behaviors: contingent responsivity and psychological
differentiation (Lidz, 1991). As the reader launches
himself into another self-initiated revision (cor-
recting the preposition at in the sentence “We
were at over 120 feet high”), he seems to sense
the writer’s frustration at being corrected too
much.
Episode 5
36. R: “We were at over . . . ”
37. W: We were over one hundred twenty feet
high . . .
38. R: At . . . this at is unnecessary because . . .
39. W: We were . . .
40. R: We were over one hundred twenty, this
at, I mean . . . I don’t . . .
41. W: We were over . . .
42. R: I mean, you . . . , I want you to give me
your opinion . . .
43. W: no . . .
44. R: I am only revising, only revising, do
you understand?
45. W: because . . .
46. R: As I understand it . . . as I understand
it. . . . One thing is how I talk and
another is how I should talk (laugh-
ter).
47. W: You make the corrections that need to
be done. Don’t worry. . . .
As the reader “reads” his partner’s uneasiness,
he responds by releasing some of his tight control
of the task and inviting the writer to voice his
opinion. The reader reminds the writer (and pos-
sibly himself) that he is “only revising” (line 44).
What the reader is displaying here is “contingent
responsivity,” that is, the ability to “read the
[tutee]’s cues and signals related to learning, af-
fective, and motivational needs, and then to re-
spond in a timely and appropriate way” (Lidz,
1991, p. 109). Through this behavior, the reader
attempts to maintain a distance that would allow
the writer to make his own decisions. In a subtle
and implicit way, the reader is communicating to
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
the writer that he is there to provide an audience
that will facilitate revision and that his task is not
to impose his own criterion, compete with his
partner, or appropriate authorship. In so doing,
the reader gives signs of what Lidz (1991) calls
“psychological differentiation,” that is, keeping a
clear distinction between his role as “reader,” or
facilitator, and his partner’s role as the author
who is ultimately responsible for the text. (The
preposition at was deleted in the final version.)
Episode 5 (continued)
48. R: OK, here it would be on, no, no on no,
because on is [sobre] . . .
49. W: Then it would be to a side, along the side
...
50. R: It says “I saw a house with a little river
passing on the side,” passing in the side
...
51. W: to a side?
52. R: because in is [dentro] . . .
53. W: Right.
54. R: You are saying that you are passing in
the house . . . by the side, it should be by
the side, do you agree?
55. W: Yes.
The reader’s invitation for more active involve-
ment on the writer’s part has an immediate ef-
fect. As the reader focuses his attention on an-
other preposition within the sentence (“a house
with a little river passing in the side of it”), the
writer tries to regain authorship by making sug-
gestions to improve his own text (line 49). The
writer shows signs of “disinhibition” (Donato,
1994, p. 50) in response to the mediator’s scaf-
folding efforts, and a joint search for an alter-
native ensues. As the students formulate and
reformulate options, running the gamut of
prepositions, they finally settle on a satisfactory
solution (the preposition by, line 54). In this pro-
cess, we see the microgenesis of the participants’
L2 at work and the social embeddedness of their
linguistic development. From several incorrect al-
ternatives the students arrive, in collaboration, at
a better alternative (see Donato, 1994, for similar
examples), deciding on a form that is ultimately
adopted by the writer in his final draft. The epi-
sode concludes with the reader’s question “Do
you agree?” By seeking his peer’s approval, the
reader is displaying affective involvement (Lidz,
1991). His deference and tactful attitude help to
maintain pursuit of the goal and interest in the
task. One of the important features of scaffolding
in this episode is, thus, the reader’s skillful man-
59
agement of the affective dimension of inter-
action.
Affectivity between the partners at a high, Epi-
sode 6 starts with a joke.
Episode 6
56. R: “The next day we went to a cave that
was very far away” period. Here you
have to indent [dejar sangría] and start
here. After a period, when you start a
new paragraph, you have to leave a
space from the margin. I don’t know
how to say [sangría]. . .
57. W: Put it in Spanish, she (the teacher) . . .
58. R: She is going to think we mean the
drink (laughter) . . .
59. W: OK, then, write bloody.
60. R: What?
61. W: On the side.
62. R: Bloody (laughter).
63. W: I’ll tell her it was clear for me.
In this segment, the students share a moment of
laughter based on common knowledge (sangría,
the word for “indent” in Spanish, is also a popular
drink made of red wine which looks like blood
[sangre]). The opening joke not only relieves
stress but also helps the interlocutors consolidate
intersubjectivity, a concept used by Rommetveit
(1985) to signify that subjects participating in a
common task have a shared understanding of the
situation and are in tune with one another. In this
case, both partners share the intended meaning
of a particular word, thus devising, in a humorous
way, their own semiotic clues to continue the task.
Intersubjectivity is an essential ingredient of
work within the ZPD, because it signals a state of
mutual cognition propitious for the attainment
of self-regulation. This state of mutual cognition
is maintained throughout Episode 6 due, in no
small measure, to the reader’s skillful handling of
joint regard (Lidz, 1991), that is, his continuous
focusing of attention on the writer’s text as if
trying to see it through the writer’s eyes. This
behavior is clearly observed below in lines 72
(“what is it that you want, you did it, you tell me
what you were doing”) and 78 (“I want you to give
me your opinion. You say that you passed along
some houses . . . ”).
Much of Episode 6 is devoted to a lengthy dis-
cussion in which both participants give and re-
ceive feedback, showing the effects of mutual
scaffolding.
60
Episode 6 (continued)
64. R: “And I was impressed” . . . I think this
at is not necessary.
65. W: “And I was impressed how can a house”
no, because then, it’s like there is
something missing. It would sound as
if I were saying that, and it is not in
quotation marks.
66. R: And I was impressed . . .
67. W: And I was impressed how a house . . .
and then . . . and I was impressed at
how a house . . .
68. R: OK, but you just told me that it is not
the same to say it in Spanish than to
read it in English. I think that if you
look . . . look . . . it says, “and I was
impressed how can a house could be so
far from the road.”
69. W: OK, but if we take out that connection
(the preposition at), we would have to
put it in quotation marks so that it
looks as if I were saying it.
70. R: But, it is . . . you are asking yourself
how it was possible that a house would
be so far from the road, right?
71. W: It’s all right, whatever . . .
72. R: So . . . what is it that you want, you did
it, you tell me what you were doing.
You say here that you passed along
some little houses made of wood and
you were impressed . . .
73. W: . . . at how those houses could be so far
from the roads . . .
74. R: Then you are asking yourself . . .
75. W: Well, I was not asking but commenting . . .
76. R: Because if you use how, it’s because you
were asking something. How is used to
make questions, do you understand?
77. W: Yes.
78. R: Because . . . look . . . tell me if it
doesn’t sound better. I want you to give
me your opinion. You say that you
passed along some houses made of
wood and that you were impressed at
how, see? If I say at how . . . in Spanish
. . . a thing could be . . . a house could
be . . . see? There’s redundancy.
79. W: Hmm . . .
80. R: “I was impressed at how can a house
could be” how can a house . . .
81. W: It would be then at how a house could be . .
. regression within the ZPD are encountered. In
82. R: how can a house be . . .
83. W: again?
84. R: or how can a house . . .
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
85. W: No.
86. R: There’s a very subtle detail here.
87. W: Should I ask (the teacher) or is this as
we think . . . ?
88. R: We are supposed to be the ones that
revise it.
89. W: Well, then, anyway, it’s all right.
90. R: I was impressed how, how can a house
be . . . . This doesn’t sound right.
91. W: And, what about how a house could with-
out can?
92. R: Exactly. I think it sounds better . . . how
a house could be . . . so this can doesn’t
go there. This one, yes . . .
In this segment, the students are struggling
with a faulty embedded sentence (“and I was im-
pressed at how can a house could be so far from
the road”), which neither one seems to know
quite how to fix. What is interesting here is that
task regulation is shared between reader and
writer throughout the interaction. Though the
reader takes the lead in revising, pointing at a
troublesource and suggesting repair (deletion of
the preposition at, line 64), the writer immedi-
ately rejects his peer’s suggestion (lines 65, 67,
69). As the reader insists in repairing the trouble-
source his way, the writer, sounding tired, agrees
halfheartedly (“It’s all right, whatever,” line 71).
But the reader will not let his partner give up so
easily and urges him to clarify what he wanted to
say. This is a crucial moment in scaffold construc-
tion. The reader, playing the role of “communi-
cative ratchet,” as Bruner (1978, p. 254) would
put it, needs to make sure that the writer does not
fall back and that the interaction keeps going or
the scaffold would collapse. As the interaction
progresses, a symmetrical relationship between
the peers is established with both showing signs
of self- and other-regulation at different times.
The reader, for instance, is unsure of how to solve
the verb problem in the sentence (lines 80–85)
and admits a “subtle” difficulty with the text (line
86), but he is quick to reject the writer’s sugges-
tion of calling for the teacher’s help (lines
87–88). The writer, on his part, lets himself be
guided in the revision by his peer but is ultimately
responsible for offering the correct solution (de-
letion of the redundant can, line 91), which the
reader readily accepts. The revision is finally
adopted by the writer in the submitted version.
In Episodes 7 and 9, two instances of possible
those episodes, two correct instances of language
were wrongly revised by the reader with the writer
tacitly accepting those revisions. In Episode 7, the
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
appositive phrase “the nearest being” was replaced
by “the nearest were,” and in Episode 9 the relative
pronoun that in the sentence “we ended up in a
room that could hold a house” was changed to
where. For the sake of brevity, only Episode 7 will
be offered as illustration.
Episode 7
93. R:
“the nearest being. . . ”
94. W:
“being at almost two miles away. . . ”
95. R:
What do you mean in Spanish?
96. W:
that the nearest being almost two miles
...
97. R: The nearest being? The nearest was,
the nearest was two miles away . . . was
or were? Was it near the house, or the
houses?
98. W: Well, we passed two or three.
99. R: But if you say the nearest [la más cerca]
...
100. W: I’m talking about the roads.
101. R: Oh, well, if you are talking of the
roadsss, it’s more than one, then it’s
were, plural.
In both episodes, the writer accepts the
reader’s modifications, but in his final version, he
disregards them and retains his own, thus show-
ing symptoms of self-regulated behavior. We be-
lieve that if the writer had not been stable enough
in his knowledge of the structures revised, he
would have been convinced by his partner to
adopt the incorrect forms. Instances like these
suggest that it is possible for L2 learners to re-
gress to lower forms, rather than advance in their
development, when interacting with a peer who
is less knowledgeable in certain aspects and when
there is no certainty of the language feature re-
vised. In L2 peer revision, this possibility is always
present inasmuch as troublesources vary in na-
ture and difficulty and partners fluctuate in their
mastery of the L2. Who is the more knowledge-
able and confident partner is highly variable in
L2 peer revision. For this reason, as Tudge (1990)
pointed out, peer collaboration in the ZPD may
lead to advanced practices, but it may well lead to
regression. Sometimes the tone and persuasive
skills of an authoritative peer who is less knowl-
edgeable may cause the other to regress in his
thinking, particularly if his or her level of confi-
dence is low. Regression, however, is a normal
feature of growth in L2 learning, as Lantolf and
Aljaafreh (1995) suggested, and should be ex-
pected to manifest itself in microgenetic develop-
ment.
61
Episode 8 is a brief segment of interaction,
dominated by the reader, that illustrates a typical
scaffolding behavior: modeling (Bruner, 1978;
Wood et al., 1976).
Episode 8
102. R: “When we arrived to the cave,” comma,
“I thought,” I thought . . . what?
103. W: a lot of walking for . . .
104. R: I thought . . .
105. W: a lot of walking for this little hole . . .
106. R: Oh, you have the quotation marks
here. I hadn’t seen them. I thought
. . . . You can put a colon, can’t you?
After you say, I thought.
In this episode, the reader, working quite inde-
pendently, points out a troublesource—a missing
comma (line 102)—and proceeds to repair it,
inserting the comma where it belongs while ver-
balizing his actions. The writer’s participation is
limited to reading aloud the part of the sentence
under repair. His tacit approval of the reader’s
revision is evidenced by the adoption of the
change in the final draft. Despite its brevity and
rather noncollaborative nature, this episode is
important because it illustrates the externaliza-
tion of revision strategies that occurs during peer
interaction and the modeling that such externali-
zation entails.
By Episode 10 the students show that they are
very much in tune with one another and are
working as one. As mentioned before, they have
reached a state of intersubjectivity in which expla-
nations about content and structures are half
given as if both students could read each other’s
mind.
Episode 10
107. R: what really impressed me was that it
was a downward, next to us it was, next
to us there were [había] . . .
108. W: That it doesn’t sound correct.
109. R: No, you are conjugating the verb . . . .
When you say the verb to be in the past,
I was, you were, she was, he was, it was,
there was, it was, there was [hubo, es-
tuvo, había].
110. W: Then it would be there was [había], next
to us there was . . .
111. R: “there was,” there was [había, de haber,
había] “a downward hole.” . . . What
does it say here?
62
112. W: “that lead us,” [que nos guiaba, que nos
dirigía] (text says leaded) . . .
113. R: led us [nos guiaba, nos condujo] . . .
114. W: led us, took us [nos condujo, nos llevó]
...
115. R: that followed, followed, followed us
...
116. W: No, that would mean that it followed
us [que nos siguió], followed us, that it
followed us . . .
117. R: lead us, [nos condujo], yes, but you
mean led [conducía] . . .
118. W: Uh hmm.
In this episode, both reader and writer demon-
strate areas of weakness and expertise. Although
neither is able to correct the past tense form of
lead (written leaded in the text), the reader is re-
sponsible for calling the writer’s attention to the
potential troublesource (the sentence beginning
“But what really impressed . . . ”), offering a bet-
ter alternative (next to us, lines 107 and 110),
considering the use of an expletive (it, line 107),
and giving the writer a minilesson in verb conju-
gation (line 109). The writer, for his part, was able
to clarify the meaning of “downward” for the
reader and to discriminate between good and
bad alternatives (“that it doesn’t sound correct,”
line 108) while solving the problem of the correct
expletive for the verb (line 110). Their joint ef-
forts result in the writer’s adoption of the correct
expletive in the final version.
By Episode 11 a much more self-regulated
writer begins to emerge. In this episode, the
writer firmly rejects the reader’s suggestion to
substitute the pronoun it for a very important
idea and self-confidently defends his original ver-
sion: “After that trip I have been thinking about
how some people spend a lot of money traveling
when there are beautiful things in Puerto Rico. .
. .”
Episode 11
119. R: “After that trip,” after that trip, I have
been thinking about how many per-
sons . . .
120. W: About how some persons . . .
121. R: I have been thinking about it.
122. W: No, because if I put it, it means I have
been thinking about it, but I want to
say that I am thinking, how could there
be persons that spend their money, a
lot of money, in traveling, when there
are things here?
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
The interaction that follows, from Episodes 12
to 16, is marked by a great degree of intersubjec-
tivity, with both students “tuned” into the task and
making corrections very quickly, as if working in
an “automatic” collaborative revision mode.
There is also frequent use of the pronoun we by
both reader and writer to denote their “joint re-
gard” (Lidz, 1991) of the task. Revising is no
longer just the reader’s responsibility, or just the
writer’s, but a shared unique experience under-
taken by both: “We could also put . . . ,” “What are
we going to write?” “We can say. . . .” (See specifi-
cally lines 130, 132, 136, 138–139, 145–146,
149–151.)
In Episode 13, suggestions for improvement
flow from each student so that the end result is
truly a joint production.
Episode 13
123. R: “There are some places that . . .
124. W: have to stay untouched by human
hands.
125. R: I don’t know. This seems to need it.
126. W: It already has this.
127. R: Oh, yeah, yeah, right. “This leads me
to believe there are some places that .
. .”
128. W: “have to stay untouched.”
129. R: This must be must.
130. W: We could also put . . .
131. R: It’s an obligation.
132. W: Must remain, we could also put here
remain . . .
133. R: Exactly, that must remain . . . un-
touched. This way we can work better
because, you see, two heads think bet-
ter than one. When one works alone,
one thinks and thinks and doesn’t
know what to do.
134. W: Exactly. One gets stuck.
This episode demonstrates why some re-
searchers have characterized the type of interac-
tion that occurs during scaffolding as an artful
“dance” (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Lidz, 1991) in
which both participants must read and anticipate
each other’s movements so that no one loses a
step. As the reader moves forward pointing out
“This must be must” (line 129), the writer follows
without lagging behind, “Must remain, we could
also put here remain” (line 132), to which the
reader retorts, “Exactly, that must remain . . .
untouched” (line 133), not letting the writer fall
back. (This sentence was adopted in the final
version as jointly revised.) That they have
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil 63
achieved a state of mutual cognition and are 150. R: I don’t think it is necessary to say people
working as one is highlighted by their comments, of the future . . . . We can say in the future.
jointly constructed, on the benefits of collabora- What does it say here?
tion: “Two heads think better than one” and 151. W: “We can admire,” admire, but then we
“When one works alone [reader’s words] . . . one should put people here, because if we
gets stuck [writer’s words]” (lines 133 and 134). take it out, then the word people . . . ,
By Episode 14, the scaffold is being bilaterally “so in the future can admire the won-
constructed, with both participants equally self- derful works of nature.” There’s some-
regulated. In this episode the students’ shared thing missing.
focus is on style as they suggest and analyze differ- 152. R: The people in the future could admire
ent vocabulary alternatives to make the text more the wonders . . . the wonderful work of
polished. nature . . . right?
153. W: So the people . . .
154. R: the wonderful work . . .
Episode 14
155. W: works . . .
135. W: to let the nature keep evolving by itself. 156. R: the wonderful work, is that what you
136. R: Look. Here we can put it more ele- want to say?
gantly, with that purpose. It says, what 157. W: Put an s at the end of works.
most impressed . . . was that the nature 158. R: Why?
. . . with the purpose . . . to keep . . . 159. W: the wonderful works of nature, be-
meaning conserve . . . . cause it’s not just one thing.
137. W: No, because keep is to let nature evolve
by itself, keep evolving, this keep is not The writer’s self-regulated behavior is evidenced
to maintain but to let. by his adoption in the final draft of all the
138. R: So you suggest that we say . . . changes he himself suggested as well as by his
139. W: to let the nature keep evolving . . . or further revision of the phrase “people of the fu-
we can say, to let the nature evolve by ture” into “generation of the future.”
itself. We eliminate keep and we put In Episode 16, the last episode of the revision
evolve. session, it is the writer who leads the final assess-
140. R: How do you write that? ment by asking direct questions of the reader
141. W: e-v-o-l-v-e (spelled in Spanish). (line 166) or by eliciting commentary on his own
142. R: e-v-? (in Spanish) errors (line 168).
143. W: e-v-o-l-v-e (in Spanish) evolve.
144. R: i-n-g (in Spanish), [desarrollarse].
145. W: i-n-g, [desarrollarse], and we omit keep Episode 16
and we put to let the. . . . What did you
say we were going to write here? 160. W:
Indent, this is indent.
146. R: What are we going to write? For the 161. R:
What?
purpose, [con el propósito] . . . 162. W:
Indent.
147. W: with the purpose to let the nature 163. R:
How do you spell it? It must be d-i-
evolve by itself. (spells in Spanish) . . .
164. W: d-e-n-t (spells in Spanish) . . .
Modifications jointly performed during Epi- 165. R: indent?
sode 14 appear adopted in the writer’s final ver- 166. W: indent . . . (long pause) How did you
sion. In Episodes 15 and 16 the writer is seen find . . . ? Here it says that we should
initiating and repairing troublesources on his concentrate first on content and or-
own (line 149, for example) and, in some in- ganization. How did you find this in
stances (lines 153–159, for example), providing content and organization? Did you get
scaffolding to the reader. lost?
167. R: No, you wrote it just as it happened.
Episode 15 You had a good organization.
168. W: So . . . the only thing I did wrong was
148. R: so people, people of the future can . . . ? . . . the . . .
149. W: so people in the future . . . . I should 169. R: spelling mistakes. That’s very com-
change this in for of . . . instead of in the mon, everywhere . . . . How do you
future we can say of the future. write “orthography” in English?
64
170. W: Orthography? Ah . . . o-r-t-o-g-r-a-p-h-y
(in Spanish) o-r-t-h-o . . . .
After an intensive collaborative session solving
many different textual problems, both students
agree that the “only” problem throughout the
composition was “spelling.” This evaluative com-
ment could be seen as an oversimplification of
the complex task of revision they have carried
out. However, the students’ minimizing of the
difficulties the task entailed for both of them
could also be interpreted as a form of praise and
encouragement (Lidz, 1991) that was adopted to
keep their self-esteem high after an experience
where so many of their cognitive, affective, and
social resources were at stake.
CONCLUSIONS
A microgenetic analysis of the data has made
possible the observation of a vast array of scaffold-
ing mechanisms in the interaction between two
L2 learners as they worked jointly in revising a
written text. The presence of these mechanisms
corroborates their importance as key features of
mediated assistance in the ZPD as reported in
previous research and confirms their applicability
to potential situations in which a ZPD may be
activated—such as peer collaboration in the writ-
ing classroom. In our study, the reader played a
crucial role as mediator, particularly in the first
half of the revision session, displaying several sup-
portive behaviors that facilitated advancement
through the task. Some of these behaviors in-
cluded (a) recruiting the writer’s interest and not
letting it flag throughout the interaction,
(b) marking critical aspects or discrepancies in
the writer’s text, (c) explicitly instructing or giv-
ing minilessons to the writer on issues of gram-
mar and mechanics, and (d) modeling.
In addition, the reader’s performance dis-
played (a) intentionality (willingness to influence
his partner’s actions, to keep the interaction go-
ing, and to accomplish goals), (b) task regulation
(efforts at making the task manageable for both
and inducing solutions to textual problems),
(c) meaning (promoting understanding by fo-
cusing on what was not clear or discrepant and
eliciting clarification or correction), and (d) con-
tingent responsivity (ability to read his partner’s
cues—especially affective—and respond accord-
ingly). The reader was able to use psychological
differentiation; that is, although he became
highly involved in revising the text and was very
directive at times, he stopped short of appropriat-
ing the task and allowed the writer freedom to
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
express his views. The reader demonstrated affec-
tive involvement in the task by showing humor,
sensitivity to his partner’s moods, and a desire to
maintain high self-esteem and cordial relations.
Finally, the reader made effective use of joint
regard; in other words, he tried to see the text
through the writer’s eyes by eliciting his opinion
and searching for agreement. All these behaviors
on the reader’s part helped to construct a suppor-
tive scaffold for the interaction from which a
much more self-regulated writer emerged.
Another scaffolding mechanism that facilitated
the interaction was contingent use of the L1. The
students’ decision to use the L1 (Spanish) as a
sort of lingua franca throughout the task pro-
moted communication and achievement of task
goals. In this sense, the L1 was an instrument of
task control. The L1 was also used to make ex-
plicit connections between both languages that
might facilitate expression in the L2. We agree
with Antón and DiCamilla (1998) that stifling the
use of the L1 in collaborative writing tasks in the
L2 classroom may not be a wise pedagogical prac-
tice because it discourages the employment of a
critical psychological tool that is essential for col-
laboration. We also concur with Wells (1998) in
that the value of using the L1 in L2 interactive
settings should be judged in light of the nature of
the collaborative tasks involved (the implication
being that the use of the L1 would not be favor-
able in all collaborative situations). In our case,
the objective of the task was revision of a written
text. The use of the L1 to talk about the task was
considered valuable to the extent that it did not
inhibit but instead promoted achievement of the
goal and stimulated reflection, reconsideration,
and restructuring of the L2.
An important feature that was observed
throughout the interaction was the establishment
and maintenance of intersubjectivity between
reader and writer. This state of shared focus and
intention on the part of both was achieved not
only through the reader’s efforts already men-
tioned, but by the writer’s good disposition, his
attitude of openness to receiving help, and his
willingness to consider his partner’s suggestions
for their value; in other words, the writer offered
no resistance to being helped, a serious hin-
drance to progress in the ZPD which may occur,
as pointed out by Litowitz (1993).
The microgenetic approach to the data en-
abled the observation of movement within the
students’ ZPDs. In the writer’s case, we saw a
rather passive and acquiescent partner, mostly
other-regulated, being stimulated to action
through his peer’s scaffolding efforts. Episode by
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
episode, we observed the writer’s gradual assump-
tion of responsibility, his unfolding disinhibition
to make or reject suggestions for change, and his
adoption of a more active role as reviser by taking
the initiative in revising and repairing trouble-
sources on his own. In short, we witnessed the
emergence of the writer’s self-regulation and his
growth as a more independent writer and reviser.
The task also gave the reader the opportunity to
grow in aspects of L2 writing and revising as well
as in strategic assistance and collaboration. The
task allowed both reader and writer to consoli-
date and reorganize knowledge of the L2 in struc-
tural and rhetorical aspects and to make this
knowledge explicit for each other’s benefit. In
brief, the effects of scaffolding in this interaction
were mutual. As the students reciprocally ex-
tended support and the task regulation became
more symmetrical, important lessons were shared
and new knowledge was learned.
Movement within the ZPD was evidenced not
only by the actions undertaken by the students
during the revision session itself, but also by the
independent performance of the writer in his
final draft. As noted throughout the analysis, the
writer incorporated the majority of the changes
discussed during the interaction and, in some
cases, further revised on his own. Whether these
changes led to permanent or stable development
could only be positively ascertained by long-term
performance testing (something that was beyond
the scope of our study), yet there is every indica-
tion that the peer session was a true learning
experience for both partners. Of course, not all
movement within the students’ ZPDs implied ad-
vancement toward prescribed language and rhe-
torical forms. Our analysis also exposed mo-
ments when the students were unsure or
unaware of standard forms or uses of the L2 lan-
guage and settled on their own creative alterna-
tives. From a target language and ideal rhetorical
perspective, the students sometimes exchanged
correct knowledge, sometimes incorrect; some-
times they made bad decisions, sometimes good.
From a sociocultural perspective, however, the
students were at all times creatively co-construct-
ing their own system of making meaning through
words in an L2. In this view, as Dunn and Lantolf
(1998) put it, “(un)grammaticality, and prag-
matic and lexical failures are not just flaws or
signs of imperfect learning but ways in which
learners attempt to establish (new) identities and
gain self-regulation through linguistic means” (p.
427). Certainly, our study revealed that the mi-
crogenesis of revision skills in the L2, as it occurs
in mediated peer interaction, is not a smooth,
65
linear process of development toward L2 norms,
but an irregular and dynamic movement entail-
ing the possibility of regression, creativity, and
progress.5
As to the microgenetic approach of our study,
we have found it extremely useful in uncovering
the process through which independent per-
formance in revising a text is shaped and trans-
formed by social mediation. More than ever be-
fore in our long-term study of peer revision, we
have been able to discover the social genesis of
writing and revising in an L2. With this, we do not
want to claim that microgenetic analysis is inher-
ently better than a study of outcomes; both are
ultimately interpretive and inferential. What mi-
crogenesis provides is additional, maybe even dif-
ferent, evidence of links between instruction and
learning. As Valsiner (1996) suggested, “ontog-
eny is a multilinear process” (p. 299): Just as the
same trajectory may have different outcomes in
different learners, similar outcomes may result
from different trajectories. The close scrutiny of
the microgenetic approach is thus vital in making
connections between instructional experience
and language development that might not other-
wise be derived solely from a study of outcomes.
Further research can be conducted along these
lines in other areas or aspects of L2 instruction.
For example, how are notions of genre shaped
and developed in the writing classroom? What
mechanisms do teachers or peers employ in face-
to-face interactions to help students develop re-
quirements of persuasion, argumentation, expo-
sition, description, and the like? In this study, two
male students participated. Is gender, or the ar-
rangement by sex of pairs involved in mediated
assistance, an important variable in the genesis of
language skills? What scaffolding mechanisms are
culturally specific among participants in particu-
lar learning communities?
In conclusion, this study has probed into the
dynamics of scaffolding as it occurs in L2 peer
revision. The study has contributed to a greater
understanding of the complex, manifold mecha-
nisms that are at play during mediated learner-
learner interaction and has brought to light be-
haviors that may facilitate or inhibit growth
within the ZPD, behaviors that frequently go un-
noticed in the writing classroom. All learning
situations are unique, and so is the peer inter-
action described in these pages. Yet, the analysis
undertaken here has implications for all cases of
mediated assistance where a ZPD may potentially
be activated. In particular, our study may be used
to observe and inform peer, tutor, or teacher
intervention in the L2 writing class. Some of the
66
behaviors exhibited in this study may be analyzed
and promoted, for example, in peer or tutor
training sessions. Whether or not they can be
successfully deployed depends greatly on the ap-
plication of one of the foremost principles of
scaffolded instruction: the notion that scaffold-
ing works on a contingent basis. As Wells (1999)
put it, in teaching “one is always aiming at a
moving target” (p. 319).6 It is hoped that this
study, and others along these lines, will contrib-
ute to inform those momentous decisions that
take place in the course of scaffolded learning
interactions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to thank Inter American University of Puerto
Rico for its continued support to our long-term study of
peer revision. We are also grateful to three anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
NOTES
1
Feuerstein is an Israeli psychologist whose views on
mediated learning were highly influenced by Vygotsky.
According to Williams and Burden (1997), the potential
inherent in Feuerstein’s ideas has yet not been ex-
ploited by language teachers.
2 In a response to Antón and DiCamilla (1998), Wells
(1998) questioned the application of the metaphor of
scaffolding to the type of collaborative assistance that L2
learners provide each other in writing tasks. Wells ar-
gued that in these situations (a) there is no great differ-
ence in expertise between the partners, (b) neither part-
ner is designated as “teacher,” and (c) the intention to
teach or hand over control of the task is absent, features
that are implicit in the term scaffolding, which was origi-
nally applied to mother-child, teacher-learner settings.
Wells would prefer to use the term “collaborative prob-
lem-solving” to refer to assisted L2 learner-learner inter-
action. Our belief is that the metaphor of scaffolding is
much too powerful to be excluded from the type of
interaction that we are describing. For one thing, as a
metaphor, the term “scaffolding” has the power of ag-
glutinating a host of notions and senses that the more
literal term “collaborative problem-solving” does not
seem to capture. For another, we do not preclude from
learner-learner interaction the presence of those fea-
tures pointed out by Wells: (a) Peers may vary signifi-
cantly in expertise on certain occasions; (b) partners
may adopt the role of teachers, even if not appointed as
such; and (c) there may be tacit intentionality in one
partner’s efforts to influence the other. We therefore
propose the construct of “mutual scaffolding” as an
extension of the metaphor to include elements that are
characteristic of learner-learner bilateral, reciprocal as-
sistance in the L2 classroom.
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
3 Even though in this case a microgenetic analysis is
used to observe a discursive event, this microanalysis
needs to be distinguished from traditional discourse
analysis in that the purpose is not to study the form,
structure, or pragmatic function of the conversation
itself but rather to trace revision skills development
among the participants through careful scrutiny of their
speech and actions.
4 As an anonymous reviewer suggested, it is not really
known if the writer regressed in this instance. There are
actually two possibilities: (a) The writer did not learn
the rule for the correct form of the verb and therefore
never “stepped forward,” or (b) the writer did step for-
ward by temporarily registering the right form but later
went back to a more comfortable known form within his
repertoire. The point we want to emphasize is the possi-
bility that the second alternative (regression) occurred.
5 In line with this view, Wells (1999) argued that de-
velopment should not be seen as progressing towards
some ideal; rather, learning within the ZPD should be
seen as transformation, with emphasis on diversity
rather than improvement.
6 Wells gives credit to Merrill Swain for suggesting this
metaphor.
REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language
explanations within the zone of proximal develop-
ment. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50,
532–557.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback
as regulation and second language learning in the
zone of proximal development. Modern Language
Journal, 78, 465–487.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive func-
tions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54,
314–342.
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s
learning. Vygotsky and early childhood education.
Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan ap-
proaches to understanding foreign language
learner discourse during communicative tasks.
Hispania, 77, 261–274.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language
acquisition. In S. R. J. Jarvella & W. J. M. Levelt
(Eds.), The child’s conception of language (pp.
214–256). New York: Max-Plank-Institut for Psy-
cholinguistik.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups:
Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, 17–30.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student re-
sponses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28,
181–188.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on stu-
María C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil
dents’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15,
1–16.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response
groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact
on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3,
257–276.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (1997). Repetition in the
collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygot-
skian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Re-
view, 53, 609–633.
Di Pardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response
groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foun-
dations and new directions. Review of Educational
Research, 58, 119–149.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan-
guage learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.
33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of
proximal development and Krashen’s i + 1: In-
commensurable constructs; incommensurable
theories. Language Learning, 48, 411–422.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-
cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer
revision. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative
oral/aural revision in foreign language writing in-
struction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1,
255–276.
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural ap-
proach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). L2 learning in the
zone of proximal development: A revolutionary
experience. International Journal of Educational Re-
search, 23 (7), 51–64.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural the-
ory and second language acquisition. Annual Re-
view of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assess-
ment. New York: Guilford Press.
Litowitz, B. E. (1993). Deconstruction in the zone of
proximal development. In E. Forman, N. Minick,
& C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocul-
tural dynamics in children’s development (pp.
184–196). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL
peer response groups: Stances, functions, and
contents. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL stu-
dent response stances in a peer-review task. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 1, 235–254.
McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in
classroom research: A study of peer revision. Lan-
guage Learning, 47, 1–43.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review
negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing in-
struction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.
Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education. Instruc-
tional implications and applications of sociohistorical
psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
67
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’
perceptions of effectiveness in peer response
groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7,
113–131.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992a). An L2 writing
group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 1, 171–193.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992b). Writing groups
and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Jour-
nal, 2 (2), 23–26.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response
groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revis-
ing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–141.
Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about
writing: A summary of research on intensive peer
review in expository writing instruction at the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin–Madison. In M. Nystrand
(Ed.), The structure of written communication (pp.
179–211). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Ohta, A. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an
analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner col-
laborative interaction in the zone of proximal de-
velopment. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2),
93–121.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive
development in social context. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increas-
ing linguistic structuring of experience and sym-
bolic behavior control. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Cul-
ture, communication and cognition: Vygotskyan
perspectives (pp.183–204). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rothschild, D., & Klingenberg, F. (1990). Self and peer
evaluation of writing in the interactive ESL class-
room: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal,
8, 52–65.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more
effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, 1, 217–233.
Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of
scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A.
Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dy-
namics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal devel-
opment, and peer collaboration: Implications for
classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky
and education (pp. 155–172). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Valsiner, J. (1996). Whose mind? Human Development, 39,
295–300.
van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding
Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum:
Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York:
Longman.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (1996). Peer
revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive ac-
tivities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social
68
behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5,
51–75.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (1998). Assess-
ing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original
work published 1934)
Wells, G. (1998). Using L1 to master L2: A response to
Antón and DiCamilla’s ‘Socio-cognitive functions
of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 class-
room.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 54,
343–353.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural
practice and theory of education. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
The Modern Language Journal 84 (2000)
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher
psychological processes: A clarification and appli-
cation of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development,
22, 1–22.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of
mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural
approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for teach-
ers: A social constructivist approach. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of
tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage
of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.

MLJ Article Receives Mildenberger Prize

for Research Article
On December 8, 1999, The Modern Language Association, which bears no affiliation with The Modern
Language Journal, announced the recipient of its 19th Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize for an outstand-
ing research publication in the field of teaching foreign languages and literatures.
Richard Clément, Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter MacIntyre, and Kimberly Noels. (1998). “Conceptualizing
Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Afffiliation,” MLJ, 82,
545–562.
“The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the concept ‘willingness to communicate’ in a second
language (L2). The analysis integrates psychological, linguistic, and communicative approaches to L2
learning that traditionally have been used independently. Further, the authors propose that willingness
to communicate be considered the primary goal of language instruction. The study raises many
important questions about a key phenomenon in L2 acquisition and will undoubtedly inspire future
research into the constructs described and their interrelations with other aspects of L2 learning.”
(Citation from the selection committee: Carol A. Klee, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, chair; Leslie
Schrier, University of Iowa; Andrew Suozzo, DePaul University).
Previously given to books, this is the first time an article has received this prize. In future competitions,
books will be considered for the award in even-numbered years and articles in odd-numbered years.
The MLJ is delighted to have its authors receive this prestigious award. The article was nominated by a
MLJ Editorial Board Committee (Barbara Freed, Carnegie Mellon University, chair; Gail Guntermann,
Arizona State University; Martha Nyikos, Indiana University; Rebecca Oxford, Columbia University).
Other articles nominated by this committee are listed below.
Janis L. Antonek, Dawn E. McCormick, & Richard Donato. “The Student Teacher Portfolio as Autobi-
ography: Developing a Professional Identity.” MLJ, 81, 15–27.
Huekyung Sung & Amado M. Padilla. “Student Motivation, Parental Attitudes, and Involvement in the
Learning of Asian Languages in Elementary and Secondary Schools.” MLJ, 82, 205–216.
Merrill Swain & Sharon Lapkin. “Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French
Immersion Students Working Together.” MLJ, 82, 320–327.
The MLJ congratulates the receipients of this award, as well as the other nominees, and thanks them
for submitting their stimulating papers to the Journal.