About

Matthew E. Poehner is Professor of World Languages Education and Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University. His research engages Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory to understand processes of instructed second language (L2) development and to organize educational environments and activities to promote learner language abilities. A major focus of his work is Dynamic Assessment, which rethinks assessment practice by embedding instruction as part of the procedure to broaden diagnoses of abilities. He has participated in collaborative Dynamic Assessment research projects in classroom, tutoring, and formal testing contexts across the U.S., Finland, China, and Israel, with results reported in numerous journal articles and book chapters. Poehner has co-edited volumes such as The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development and Toward a Reconceptualization of Second Language Classroom Assessment, and he is the author of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development, which is forthcoming. His 2014 book Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education received the Kenneth W. Mildenberger Book Award from the Modern Language Association. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory, philosophy of science, educational research traditions, second language acquisition theory, language testing and assessment, and second language teaching methods. Poehner has served as Past President of the International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology and is an Associate Editor of the journal Language and Sociocultural Theory.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Psychology
• Mathematics education
• Epistemology
• Philosophy
• Pedagogy
• Computer Science
• Anthropology
• Cognitive science
• Developmental psychology
• Linguistics

Selected publications

• Introduction: Advancing L2 Dynamic Assessment: Innovations in Chinese Contexts

  2025-05-07

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  This introduction to the special issue, L2 Dynamic Assessment Research in China, examines the theoretical foundations of Dynamic Assessment (DA) in the writings of L. S. Vygotsky, with particular attention to the concepts of praxis, mediation, and zone of proximal development, while also recognizing contributions from notable DA researchers such as Israeli psychologist and educator Reuven Feuerstein. Trends in the general and L2 DA research literatures are considered, including: flexible, open-ended mediation (interactionist DA) and standardized, scripted mediation (interventionist DA); formats of embedding mediation in assessment procedures (so-called ‘sandwich’ and ‘cake’ formats of DA); DA administered in classroom and group settings; DA in formal testing contexts, including computerized DA procedures; mediated scores and learning potential scores; and uses of learner profiles resulting from DA to inform instructional enrichment programs. Each article in the special issue reports original research conducted by scholars in China. How the individual studies take up and extend trends in L2 DA research is explained. Given that learning activities and the thinking associated with them are deeply saturated in specific cultural practices and norms, it is argued that extension of DA principles to new cultural contexts, such as those reported in the special issue, is informative not only for assessment researchers in China but for the international community of assessment scholars, and it is essential for the continued development of DA frameworks.

  PublisherDOI

• Reading with a Chatbot - The added value of Generative AI as a resource in mediating learners in Dynamic Assessment of L2 English reading

  Studies in Language Assessment · 2025-12-01

  articleOpen access

  This study is part of the DD-Lang project (see Leontjev et al., 2024) aimed at enhancing Finnish upper secondary school students’ reading in English and developing their understanding of their reading processes by bringing together two approaches that support language learning: diagnostic assessment (DiagA) and dynamic assessment (DA). The project designed online reading exercises for English based on retired Matriculation Examination items that implement graduated support (DA based mediation) for learners who struggle to complete the reading tasks. The tasks also include a chatbot that the learners can query when taking the exercises. The study reported here explores how this AI-powered chatbot might complement the standardised mediation accompanying the reading tasks. In the study, five students completed the online reading tasks, received mediation and interacted with the chatbot when needed. Their experiences were then discussed in a group session with their teacher and a researcher. Findings show that the students’ reactions to standardised mediation were varied: while some thought it changed the way they read, others considered it repetitive and quite general. Although limited in scale, this research also suggests that integrating an AI-based chatbot into DA can enhance learners’ reading comprehension processes and inform classroom practices.

  PublisherDOI

• In pursuit of pink elephants: Sociocultural Theory and the determination of learning in assessments that support L2 teaching and learning

  System · 2025-01-05 · 2 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• L2 Dynamic Assessment Research in China

  2025-05-07

  book1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Dynamic assessment of L2 argumentative writing: Understanding the effectiveness of ZPD-based instructional enrichment

  Language Teaching Research · 2025-07-29 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Argumentative writing has long been recognized as challenging for English second language (L2) writers yet central to their academic success in educational settings. This article investigates the effectiveness of a writing instructional enrichment program informed by diagnoses from dynamic assessment (DA) in promoting L2 learners’ argumentative writing abilities. Grounded in Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory, DA introduces mediation into the assessment procedure, so that learner emerging abilities are diagnosed through observing their responsiveness to mediation when difficulties arise. In this study, prior to and following the instructional programs, a three-step, interactionist DA procedure was implemented where participants composed argumentative essays in response to reading–writing integrated tasks. Following the initial DA procedure, participants were assigned to either an enrichment program that received individualized instruction on integrated argumentative writing targeting their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), or a non-enrichment program, where generic and standard instruction uninformed by DA diagnoses was provided. Finally, the study implemented a transfer assessment to ascertain the participants’ ability to transfer their learning to a more challenging, complex integrated task. The essays completed independently by both enrichment and non-enrichment groups during the assessments were analysed in terms of stance taking and stance support. Stance taking was examined through writers’ establishment of their own position and their engagement with opposing positions, whereas stance support was investigated in four sub-aspects: type of evidence, number of source ideas, non-transgressive/transgressive intertextuality, and content accuracy. The findings revealed that the enrichment group outperformed the non-enrichment group in stance taking and stance support at both the DA procedure implemented following the writing instructional programs and the transfer assessment. The article concludes by highlighting the effectiveness of tailoring writing instruction towards learners’ ZPD as diagnosed through DA in promoting their development of integrated argumentative writing.

  PublisherDOI

• Dynamic Assessment and L2 Development

  The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · 2025-12-02

  other1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Dynamic assessment (DA) is a framework aimed at expanding diagnoses of abilities to include not only those that have already fully developed but also abilities that are still in the process of emerging. This distinction follows L. S. Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory, in particular his understanding of the zone of proximal development. While conventional assessments prioritize observation of independent performance, Vygotsky maintained that the zone of proximal development is apprehended by providing support or mediation (e.g., prompts, leading questions, feedback, models) when independent performance breaks down and observing learner responsiveness. A wide range of procedures for embedding mediation in assessment have been devised for use with different populations around the world and are collectively referred to as DA. Over roughly the past 20 years, a substantial body of DA research has been generated in the L2 field. From early studies of mediational processes and their interpretation during one‐to‐one administrations of DA, researchers have increasingly turned to group administrations in classroom contexts as well as applications for more formal assessment purposes. Studies have been conducted with learners of a variety of languages at different proficiency levels and focused on a range of language abilities.

  PublisherDOI

• Mediated Development: A Framework for Fostering the Internalization of Concept-Based Materials

  Language and Sociocultural Theory · 2025-05-01

  articleSenior author

  Since its inception with Negueruela (2003) , concept-based language instruction (C-BLI) has incorporated approaches to organizing curricula around abstract language concepts that are initially presented to learners through specially designed materials (e.g., visuals, diagrams, and objects) and subsequently practiced in communicative activities to support concept appropriation by learners ( Lantolf & Poehner, 2024 ). Research associated with C-BLI has significantly expanded its scope to consider not only an array of linguistic features across a range of target languages ( Lantolf, Xi, & Minakova, 2021 ) but also the inclusion of other theories of psychological development that align with the principles of Vygotskian sociocultural theory (SCT). Regarding this latter point, the present study considers a strand of C-BLI research referred to as mediated development (MD) that is intimately informed by the work of Feuerstein and his associates in general cognitive education research (e.g., Feuerstein et al., 2015 ) as well as extensions of these programs in special education and academic content instruction ( Kozulin, 2024 ). MD distinguishes itself from other C-BLI approaches in that it provides a framework to support teacher efforts to guide learner engagement with linguistic concepts and their symbolic representation. Notably, dialogic mediation in MD includes activities that call forth psychological actions (e.g., labeling-visualizing, comparing, and materializing or encoding-decoding) that contribute to the learner's ability to think with conceptual materials and foreground the mediator's role in dialogically guiding learner use of conceptual materials to highlight the semantic possibilities available to them. We explore these characteristics of MD implemented in a C-BLI program ( Infante, 2016 ) focused on the English tense-aspect system. Transcribed interaction between an adolescent English learner and a mediator showcases the developmental possibilities that are brought about by the shifting emphases of dialogic mediation aimed at enhancing learner comprehension and use of concept-based materials over the course of a second language writing program.

  PublisherDOI

• Crisis! Commentary on “synergies” in second language acquisition and teaching (SLA/T) and how the field may advance

  Modern Language Journal · 2025-11-10 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access

  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the special synergies issue on SLA/T (Atkinson et al., MLJ 2025 Supplement). Given length limitations we will restrict our commentary to what we believe to be a crucial matter evidenced by the special issue (SI), namely that it, along with other dialogues in the field (e.g., Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Hulstijn et al., 2014, 2015) are indicative of a crisis in SLA/T. This is not the same type of crisis that results in Kuhnian scientific revolutions (Kuhn, 1962). For one thing, we do not believe there is a dominant paradigm in SLA/T and, for another, Kuhn doubted that his analysis applied to the social sciences (Sturm & Mühlberger, 2013). The crisis that we perceive in SLA/T is akin to the crises that have plagued psychology virtually from its inception at the end of the 19th century. Diagnosing a crisis is an essential first step for SLA/T to move forward as a scientific discipline. Moreover, given the interrelation of SLA theory and research with language education (the T in SLA/T), responding to the crisis holds consequences for language teachers and learners. While SLA/T is traditionally considered to have originated in applied linguistics, in our opinion, it has much more in common with contemporary psychology, given its interest in process as well as its preferred research methods. As background, we will briefly explain the nature of the crisis in psychology in order to inform our contention that SLA/T is also in a state of crisis as manifested in the SI and the other SLA publications cited above. In so doing, we will focus on some, though by no means all, of the indicators of a crisis. Finally, we will suggest a possible way out of the crisis that would open the way for significant progress. According to Sturm and Mühlberger (2013) a field can be in a crisis with or without overt acknowledgement of such a state of affairs. While most crisis declarations in psychology highlight the proliferation of theories, they also point to the lack of terminological agreement as well as differences in research and analytical methods (Pléh, 1988). Indeed, Bakan (1995, p. 337) described psychology as a collection of “unrelated molecules” that has yielded interesting findings and ideas but with no coherence resulting in “negligible growth of understanding of mind.” Theory proliferation has been a concern of SLA researchers such as Long (1993), who argued for the need to formulate guidelines (see Jordan, 2004) to reduce the number of theories to a level at which the field could eventually settle into normal science activity (Kuhn, 1962). The field also lacks agreement on key terminology across its various theories, as well as a worry about how to deal with the perceived research/practice divide. We point out, following Sturm and Mühlberger (2013 ), that while a crisis seems to indicate a negative state of affairs, it also presents an opportunity for a field to develop. These authors mention, for instance, that the Chinese word for crisis (危机) consists of two characters, the first signaling danger and the second opportunity. Bühler (1927) described an early crisis as an Aufbaukrise (a construction/building crisis), implying a possibility of building something new out of the situation (Pléh, 1988). In psychology and in SLA/T a crisis is a sign that something is not functioning well, but at the same time it indeed presents an opportunity to improve the situation and move the field in a positive direction. Even though they did not overtly acknowledge a crisis, in their attempt to find common ground the contributors must have had some sense that all is not well in SLA/T. Finding common ground without addressing the differences and incommensurabilities among the various theories is an unsatisfactory way to resolve any crisis. A particularly useful approach to analyzing the crisis in psychology is provided by Yurevich (2009), which we believe also applies to SLA/T. Yurevich characterized the crisis as ruptures along three dimensions. The first, a horizontal rupture, reflects the unacceptable number of theories, schools, and trends in the field. The second, a vertical rupture, separates the cognitive/neuroscience research approaches from the humanistic approaches. The third, a diagonal rupture, segregates researchers from practitioners. We used Yurevich's analysis of the psychology ruptures to help us think about ruptures in SLA/T and how these are reflected in the SI. We believe that the ruptures in two of the three axes, horizontal and diagonal, are more clearly represented in the SI, while the vertical axis less so, with the possible exception of the contrast between Western, or more accurately, Anglo-American quantitative-based scientific research and Ortega's call for decolonialization of research practices. While many psychologists have described the crisis in their field, most have not proposed a clear way to resolve the situation. One psychologist who did offer a resolution was L. S. Vygotsky, whose extended analysis was produced in 1926, even before he developed his own psychological theory (see Vygotsky, 1997a). Although he addressed theory proliferation, lack of terminological agreement, and theory practice/segregation, Vygotsky also brought to center stage a concern reflected in the subtitle of his text, A Methodological Investigation, in which he proposed that any scientific theory must first and foremost be conceived as a methodological system. Here he is not referring to research procedures but to a theory of scientific cognition (Toomela, 2014). In other words, the cognitive orientation of researchers affects the kinds of questions they ask, theories they propose to answer their questions, and technical procedures they deploy to assess the validity of their theories. Methodological orientation mediates the relationship between high-level theoretical speculation and low-level empirical research.1 In the SI, we identify at least three different methodological orientations. One we believe reflects Dafermos's (2021, p. 357–358) description of a metaphysical “way of thinking [italics in original] that separates things from each other (…) based on the examination of things as isolated from each other” and also isolated “from interconnections with other things.” This way of thinking Toomela (2017) called logical science, which assumes that causality is a linear cause > effect relationship that privileges quantitative analysis of covariance between variables as addressed in Sasaki's contribution to the SI. Toomela (2010) noted that both Pearson (1902) and Thurstone (1935), the inventor of factor analysis, understood that quantitative analysis expresses covariation appearances and not internal mechanisms that underlies external behaviors. As an example of logical thinking in SLA research, we consider a well-known study by Ellis (2005) that attempted to distinguish between implicit and explicit knowledge among L2 learners of English. The learners completed a series of tasks designed to elicit either implicit or explicit knowledge of 17 grammatical features of English. The relevant tasks with regard to implicit knowledge were a timed grammaticality judgment, an oral narrative, and an elicited imitation task. Using factor analysis, Ellis (2005) concluded that these three tasks measured implicit knowledge. According to Paradis (2009), however, most late L2 learners rely on explicit knowledge supported by the neurological declarative memory system. With practice learners are able to access this knowledge automatically, but this, according to Paradis is not the same type of automaticity that occurs with implicit learning subserved by the procedural memory system, which is automatic and inaccessible to conscious inspection as when children acquire their L1. It is quite possible, therefore, that the observed performance of the learners classified as stemming from implicit knowledge could have resulted from accelerated access to explicit knowledge. In other words, we cannot assume an isomorphic relationship between observed performance and the psychological processes that underlies it. Indeed, beyond SLA/T and psychology, natural sciences employing this mode of thinking have found themselves in a situation of the same data set supporting multiple theoretical interpretations, a challenge referred to as the underdetermination of theory by evidence (see Stanford, 2009). A possible way of resolving such dilemmas is through identifying forms of evidence that can determine which theory provides the best explanation (see below). In the example of implicit knowledge and memory in L2, one could conduct a behavioral experiment, as Ellis did, along with an ERP component which should indicate which memory system (procedural or declarative) is subserving the responses of the learners. Opposing logical thinking is the thinking reflected in Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) discussed in Lowie's contribution in which it is assumed that complex systems “consist of an infinite number of changing components” (Atkinson et al., 2025b, p. 53), all of which make an individual's language development “unique” (p. 54). The problem we see with this perspective, which we cannot address with the detail it deserves here, is that it is unclear how one could produce knowledge with any degree of confidence given the infinity of potential connections assumed to operate in complex systems. No matter how many connections one there is one determine what something As Toomela p. can be by an number of other things that are external to but can be in many not knowledge but would be on knowledge that some state of is (Toomela, p. such as from or the that will a This is not to that knowledge is and cannot be by new and this is how science The point is that we need to produce in the first that can be according to how well they for findings and to Given its methodological one can appreciate that not this were the it is to how would be possible, on the to in the which is possible of the (Toomela, Moreover, it would be to for the consequences of their and what would be the nature of the same to the same results A methodological orientation in the SI is In their to the SI, the that least three of the are (p. Although Yurevich a positive of in psychology, of among the various psychological schools, he did not believe that the of psychological (p. and p. SLA theories they are on as according to these when some L2 researchers attempted to with of (see & Vygotsky and each negative in For Vygotsky it was with scientific p. it can in p. as with to theory with p. argued that is for the of that its a sense of and an for scientific In three the SI contributors to thinking (p. p. and p. we are to evidence of in the is a for internal as the of As Toomela (2017) it the for orientation that to three questions to a what are the that the what are the among the and what are the of the In this we need to point out that the from & cited by the (Atkinson et al., p. to the effect that and practice are two of the same was as a of between the two of the practice It was not to for the that have for and the SI the contributors address the of their for a that we see as Indeed, as much as the contributors to practice into the of second language research, the that each first the theoretical and research orientation of its by of its a of as the in SLA/T. In our the is particularly in the following comment from the and practice have different et al., p. a that we do not with and that we see as clearly at with a We to this in our problem to be what psychologists had to is terminological when it to and This each is akin to a 1997a). Given that the of science is to the of it is not to but to in a and we are in of that we can perceive through it is for science to what is beyond the of which is a process that not on the methodological orientation of but also on the terminology used to and 1997a). For the in SLA/T for but do all researchers language in the same In the SI, we at least two different one from theory and one from theory and and in a language that is an essential of the through which we and with the and it that of have in their own p. both theories be are the consequences of these two of language for research and most for can the be It on which there seems to be a lack of agreement is not so much with regard to its but as to it is relevant for The and et al., p. to the of with regard to between and L2 when it to on a language The however, to that language learning is complex to be a number of or can learning (Atkinson et al., 2025b, p. A is reflected in the of and et al., p. of the The at least when it to linear The SI contributors and research they do not the of each to theory or research For instance, in SLA/T to such as and more as in psychology, researchers to these are even the other researchers assume that of interest can be understood in natural they which as Toomela is to what in and some of of what do in the to language at most of but not knowledge of the processes that (Toomela, access these mechanisms in This is not an for quantitative research with but is an for with as in psychology to and which was to the of Anglo-American for According to particularly in and what referred to as a research approach with the as the of understood as matter but an on the that less p. The of by theory was thinking and the psychological mechanisms that observed of is the are and through a series of with a of procedures are the an understanding of the psychological processes has been p. something that in quantitative for instance, a study cited in designed to a the to L2 learners by a word to a The study the validity of two one that agreement would be to acquire for would word with the the the the study for the based on the a of at the and found agreement word that more analysis along the by the the process is to be The of as in the is that it researchers to study processes as in the sciences (Toomela, 2014). not but from a theoretical that the to their through among these are most of such a is able to access to what would A type of was developed by Vygotsky, which he referred to as the or the of through which the process of interest is are given a that is beyond their to out but at the same time they are provided with such as or to the which they can deploy to their performance in order to the task. Dynamic is a of this In in for the of of beyond the of which that have developed and that are by in tasks that such do not of that are in the process of for learners that they are to on their own learners when they are (e.g., and the into their by the of a problem as well as how learners are to more In this the in the are brought into to improve and language provided an of what can be through when he L2 learners of with In from the of and teachers to as a between the and the with a by an from a of how the learners whose performance on tasks was quite out to have different when was each in their but not the The observed the that each One that had that the was even an and to it in a that was of the and was able to identify some of the had its but it to the forms and was not in all the its A that on for which to much as did in with was different from of As a or implicit of was not to a for between the two Indeed, when to a for that to one and it that this was what it is to any such a in practice to the by in which he used to by or by or the relationship among The issue of et al., p. between theory and practice to the of what we see as the most the of and to our While the SI contributors acknowledge this they do not its for both knowledge and theory and practice indeed have it seems to be the that the special this of and the possibility of building what SLA/T knowledge is for and it should This of occurs when the field to on are our to to or to the of knowledge SLA/T research processes or that improve our to cognitive social or The while and these crucial questions by to the of common ground and without first and Although the focus of our commentary on the SI, we that the and potential consequences of the crisis beyond the of the and of The more the field of and without mechanisms for resolving we be for our own language language language and all who could from the knowledge we to these in and without and clear from the field, make more about language education based on and SLA/T for its knowledge and their it that we could to into isolated and while that we all in one way or another, such as the of L2 learning and the and of language education it we need to do of L2 education is L2 L2 is for L2 L2 learning the field of SLA is to make a for its and to The nature of development the between research and practice is not the of scientific research as of the of science with no effect on the of the p. the the tasks and as the of as its It how to the and how to formulate the the and the in the same the process of development and of in a most essential p. the of psychology must the of p. In his of language education in the p. to the between and psychological with theory to development not on the and of but on their knowledge of how to the social of the to language development According to to of natural approaches to language in the understood learning in as different process language learning in the p. a at with that by the SI contributors in their synergies (p. which seems to that should not be from or as a of are of and as such are social activity however, they are indeed forms given that they or should that do not in p. two of by psychologists and to in the on the is with with knowledge not through in most other that a and level of development not in other of It is for this that Vygotsky education as a activity of provides learners with for thinking and in the in that they would not have access to in other This on the of teachers and the to be at with that of the contributors to the SI. we find of a that should be as to their own and and with their own approaches to learning that teachers should According to the that the to their own learning at the of is a of a of that learners of which is with new knowledge. This of language education is by the that the SI contributors offer no for what can be when are not learners and when their and are to the point to their own they would to their and of their as called for by et al., p. of our research and of our synergies the answer to questions of how are or how education in our no such it is clear that a of different is each of one and to the of how to and how to In the teachers must their own based on their own in the in which they are et al., p. of and the proliferation of consider the on teachers across the various theoretical represented in the SI. a teachers would need to by themselves on the that their given in a given as well as themselves and their and to and et al., p. they are to approaches to language (Atkinson et al., 2025b, p. while from theoretical that offer of language and learning Given this of and the of we the can language education be when the field cannot on what what or what teachers should in on teachers need to about language how to assess learning or when and how to most with knowledge of language and cannot or The field teachers who lack a clear sense of their and forms of they to the This to the and of the et al., through a to what in language what language teachers have on their and by what language have to in language teachers to language learning et al., & & two L2 and et a for a theory of SLA that would do for SLA what for a theory would do for A theory not it is theory about how different of the same are to one (Toomela, p. It which or are and or that are but not In this both and argued that must be a component of a theory as et p. characterized it, is a that the internal of language While that the relationship between theory and practice is a he that to be the for (p. A theory also and the findings of the special theories and on the various and processes in In the of this would all agreement on a of as well as other such as the of and an understanding of the It would also address the development of as well as agreement on the of A theory would also address such as what is the et al., p. (Atkinson et al., 2025b, p. or et al., p. of it et al., p. (Atkinson et al., 2025b, p. or et al., p. all some of of or some other The theory would address the methodological issue of thinking about the SLA for one way other (Toomela, A theory would determine the of analysis and of for understanding these procedures do not access to A theory would also help the field determine T should be into as by et so that the is understood to research on the of on the our researchers to have not of a theory of Ellis at least for a theory it researchers a for of and and provides a for the of L2 the same he the that such a it were to of an number of such as proposed by would be and is therefore, is a and that for the of as in p. guidelines for theory As an step to a the ruptures and not the common ground by theories, need to be addressed in p. in which the differences are and et al., p. as p. the must in The issue by and p. is an attempt to open of SLA theories that of common ground as well as incommensurabilities across theories with the of an of for SLA that has the potential to move our field beyond its of The of their is that the did not of the theories brought into but were by of a which their of theories. approach to resolving theoretical differences that in with building a theory and that has been in cognitive research is et al., in research, theoretical such as the neurological that of the theories designed a series of to determine the of of the theories. The were by resulting in an that supported the validity of one of the theories. This is an approach in SLA Indeed, of theory and Theory are in the early of the possibility of in to determine the by can or cannot be through procedures based on The forward that there is indeed a crisis in SLA and that this state of presents both danger and opportunity. The danger in and the opportunity in the possibility of a more and field. It is our that this not the of in the SI, but the of analysis that can distinguish between theoretical and by methodological for and that the of the can the field move beyond its state of crisis a more scientific of and the learning and of second in and all the danger of from science to at which point what we how we how we is to a matter of

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Developmental Education

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2024-05-21 · 39 citations

  book1st authorCorresponding

  Sociocultural Theory (SCT), as formulated by Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky nearly a century ago, is distinct among traditions in the field of second language (L2) studies in its commitment to praxis. According to this view, theory and research provide the orienting basis for practice, which in turn serves as a testing ground for theory (Vygotsky, 1997). This Element offers a synthesis of foundational concepts and principles of SCT and an overview of two important areas of praxis in L2 education: Concept-Based Language Instruction, which organizes language curricula around linguistic concepts, and Dynamic Assessment, a framework that integrates teaching and diagnosing learner L2 abilities. Leading approaches to L2 teacher education informed by SCT are also discussed. Examples from studies with L2 teachers and learners showcase praxis in action, and emerging questions and directions are considered.

  PublisherDOI

• “I Feel Proud of me”: Emotions and L2 Development in ZPD Activity

  Language Teaching Research Quarterly · 2024-10-01 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Dynamic Assessment (DA) research in the second language (L2) field has, to date, focused almost exclusively on understanding the usefulness of forms of mediation to diagnosing learner language abilities. Largely absent from this work is examination of learner experience of engaging in DA, including the role of emotions in their orientation to the activity, sustained participation, and awareness of outcomes. We report a case study of one participant in a larger study that implemented DA in an L2 English academic writing program at a university in the U.S. The research design included an initial DA to determine areas of writing to target for individualized instruction, a five-week enrichment program informed by this diagnosis, and a follow-up DA to trace learner developmental trajectories. Following one learner through this program, we identify changes in her emotional responses to the challenges of academic writing and also the ways in which changes to these responses emerged in relation to development of her writing abilities and her awareness of strengths and difficulties in her performance. Our discussion considers the importance both of mediation that is attuned to learner emotional responsiveness as well as understanding changes to learner reflections on their abilities as outcomes of development.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• James P. Lantolf

  29 shared

• Paolo Infante

  Minnesota State University, Mankato

  9 shared

• Rémi A. van Compernolle

  6 shared

• Lu Yu

  Prompt (Canada)

  4 shared

• James P. Lantolf

  Pennsylvania State University

  3 shared

• Xiaofei Lu

  3 shared

• Ofra Inbar‐Lourie

  3 shared

• Steven L. Thorne

  University of Groningen

  3 shared

Awards & honors

• Kenneth W. Mildenberger book award by The Modern Language As…