A Vygotskian Perspective on Corrective Feedback in L2: The Effect of Random Versus Negotiated Help on the Learning of English Articles

By Hossein Nassaji, M. Swain. 2000

508 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This study examined whether negotiated help provided within the learner's zone of proximal development (ZPD) is more effective than help provided randomly and irrespective of the learner's ZPD. Data were collected during tutorial sessions on writing English compositions by two Korean learners of English. Qualitative and quantitative components of the data analysis provided support to the hypothesis. In addition, it was found that when provided randomly and in a non-collaborative fashion, more explicit help produced better results than did less explicit help. The findings provide support for a consciousness-raising view of language learning. Implications for further research on collaborative feedback are discussed.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3702942dae3d9adc622bdedade5c80ef1391c428

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Dynamic assessment in the language classroom (2005, background): “5 In a small-scale study based on Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), Nassaji and Swain (2000) report that negotiated mediation is more effective than mediation that is randomly and arbitrarily offered to a learner without any sensitivity to the ZPD.”
Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs (2010, background): “The notion of ZPD highlights the importance of collaborative work because it is believed that when learners collaborate within their ZPD, they use their existing knowledge to develop what they have not yet mastered independently (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Donato, 1994; Nassaji & Swain, 2000).”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “Another possibility is to use what Nassaji and Swain (2000) and Nassaji (2007c, 2011a) have called ‘negotiated feedback’.”
Feedback‐Seeking Behavior in Language Learning: Basic Components and Motivational Antecedents (2019, methodology): “…methods, these researchers have highlighted the effectiveness of scaffolded and dialogically negotiated feedback (e.g., Aljaa-freh & Lantolf, 1994; Nassaji & Swain, 2000), and the importance of looking at CF as a collaborative, sequentially unfolding, and embodied practice (e.g., Majlesi, 2018;…”
The Effect of Peer Reviewing on Writing Apprehension and Essay Writing Ability of Prospective EFL Teachers (2012, background): “With regard to rhetorical 62 Vol 37, 11, November 2012 theories, those stressing the social nature of writing have also favored the use of peer reviews (Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Rollinson, 2005; Teo, 2006; Berlin, 1987; Bruffee, 1984; Harris, 1990; Lee & Schallert, 2008; etc.).”
Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda (2018, background): “Nassaji & Swain (2000) reported that scaffolded feedback was more effective than non-scaffolded feedback (i.e. random feedback that was not graduated and contingently responsive).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “Nassaji and Swain (2000) examined written CF, drawing on Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (1994) conceptualisation of CF based on Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD).”
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING (2010, methodology): “To link uptake and retention to how the feedback was processed, a process-product analysis (Nassaji & Swain, 2000 ) was conducted.”
The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? (2009, background): “There are a lot of studies that support the efficacy of focusing on form and providing corrective feedback in improving the L2 learners’ proficiency (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Havranek, 2002; Lyster, 2004; Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Yuan & Ellis, 2003, to name a few).”
The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks (2007, background): “Other writers, such as Wells (1998) and Nassaji and Swain (2000), place the ZPD at the very core of Vygotsky’s work.”