Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLESApplying Sociocultural Theory to the Writing Classroom
in Instruction and Assessment
社会文化理論を応用したライティングの指導法と評価
Nicholas Carr (corresponding author), Deakin University
Email: <cnich@deakin.edu.au>
Paul Wicking, Meijo University

Abstract
Key tenets of sociocultural theory (SCT) currently shape many aspects of EFL education in Japan. While
practices such as university students collaborating to refine topics for graduation theses (see Ikeda, 2014) andcontent-based seminar classes (see Ashwell, 2014) have been reported on, we believe the regular writingclassroom is one area where SCT has been relatively ignored. In this short article we present the argument forincreased attention to be given to SCT in writing instruction in order to promote learner autonomy. We do
this by firstly reviewing the fundamentals of SCT. Following that, we look at how this theory can inform key
elements of the writing classroom. Finally, we address the issue of assessment and look at practical ways it
can be approached.
Keywords: sociocultural theory, writing, collaboration, interaction
概要
今日の日本の英語教育現場において、社会文化理論の影響が多々見受けられる。例えば、大学の卒業論文の主題選択のための共同学習（Ikeda, 2014）、コンテンツベースのセミナー（Ashwell, 2014）などの実践が報告されている。しかしながら、通常のライティングの授業においては、社会文化理論が用いられることはそれほどまでにはなかったであろう。本稿では、学習者の自主性を育むためには、ライティングの指導においても社会文化理論にもっと目を向ける必要があることを論じる。
そのためにまず、社会文化理論の基本事項について再考察する。次に、どのように本理論がライ

ティングの授業における重要な要素に影響を与えることができるかについて考察する。最後に、アセスメントに関する問題への解決策を探り、実用的な方法について検討する。
キーワード: 社会文化理論、ライティング、協力、相互作用
Writing is commonly considered an individual activity (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) despite there being
evidence that collaboration in writing is not only beneficial for learners (Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998)
but also reflective of real-life practice in the workplace (Ede & Lunsford, 1990). Furthermore, group work is
widely used as assessment in universities globally (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Regardless of these real-life
practices, our experience within both universities and high schools in Japan has been that writing continues
to be practiced and assessed as an individual activity. An overview of common writing textbooks displays
some small shifts towards acknowledging the benefits of working collaboratively in the English language
writing classroom. However, these texts tend to limit collaboration to pre-writing activities, peer review ofindividually written texts, or include pair/group work as alternative activities rather than collaboration being
Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

57

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLES
afforded a central role in the pedagogical approach—for example, Engaging Writing 2 (Fitzpatrick, 2011),
Focus on Writing 4 (Beaumont, 2011), and Longman Academic Writing Series 1 (Butler, 2014). In this shortarticle we outline the theoretical arguments in support of collaboration in the writing classroom and provide
a framework for its implementation in both classroom instruction and assessment.

A Brief Overview of Sociocultural Theory
Our scope here does not facilitate a complete discussion of SCT and as such only a brief overview ispresented. A key tenet of SCT is that the human mind is mediated (Vygotsky, 1934/2012). SCT advocates thatjust as we do not act on the physical world directly but instead use tools to mediate, or assist, our interactions
with our physical environs, so too we use symbolic tools—such as language—to mediate our higher mental
functions (Lantolf, 2000). This mediation takes three forms: object-, other-, and self-regulation (Lantolf &Appel, 1994). For language learners object-regulation depicts situations in which resources such as adictionary or translation tools mediate a learner's behaviour (Lantolf, Thorne & Poehner, 2014). Lantolf andcolleagues describe other-regulation as situations in which the learner receives assistance from anotherperson—assistance which Lantolf and Appel argue primarily takes the form of participating in dialogue(Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Self-regulation refers to a learner internalising such object- and other-regulation so as
to become able to perform the task without external assistance. Within a SCT framework, language learning
shifts the focus away from mastering linguistic items in an individual’s mind and emphasizes “dialectic
interaction” to create meaning (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995, p. 110).
The process of a learner reducing the amount of object- or other-regulation and shifting towards selfregulation is said to take place in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). The
original translation of Vygotsky’s ZPD is as follows: “It is the distance between the actual developmental level
as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determinedthrough problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky,
1930-1934/1978, p. 86).
As Vygotsky only explicitly referred to the ZPD on a few occasions in his writings (Wertsch, 2010), there
are controversies over how the ZPD is to be conceptualised. For us as language teachers, we argue there is aneed to incorporate Ohta’s (2005) argument that assistance can come in the form of utilising literary
resources such as dictionaries or textbooks; that peers of varying levels can assist each other (Ohta, 2000);and Donato’s (1994) findings that peers can construct a collective expert when peers of a similar proficiency
level pool their resources together to perform at a higher level than they can individually. This leaves us witha working definition in the field of language education that conceptualises the ZPD as learners utilising theminimum amount of assistance required to perform at a level higher than which they could perform without
assistance—with the assistance being in the form of either object-regulation or other-regulation, or a
combination of both.
A final key concept of SCT is that development is said to have occurred when there is a reduction orchange in the quality of assistance required for a learner to perform at the higher level. For example, if theassistance becomes less explicit, then development has occurred. Therefore, when working within a SCT
framework, learning should not be limited to output only (Lantolf et al., 2014) but also consider the
mediation required to perform the task.
Framework of Implementation
Applying SCT to an English language writing class results in learners having additional resources, in the formof both object- and other-regulation, available to them when producing texts. Facilitating access to objectregulation can be achieved by simply ensuring learners have access to literary resources such as online
学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

58

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLES
dictionaries and example texts while writing. The provision of other-regulation, however, requires a greater
shift from a traditional pedagogical approach.
It is impractical for one teacher to be available to provide other-regulation to all learners in class.
Therefore, by drawing on Donato’s (1994) notion that learners can create new knowledge throughcollaboration, other-regulation can be made available by making collaboratively written texts the locus of thepedagogical approach. For texts to be truly collaborative, learners need to work in pairs or groups throughout
the whole writing process, including planning, researching, writing, and revision.
After learners have pooled their resources to produce a text, further support, or other-regulation, can beprovided in the form of teacher feedback. This practice draws on the growing evidence of learners being able
to co-construct knowledge when collaboratively processing feedback (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010; Swain &Lapkin, 1998). Furthermore, this feedback is best conceptualized as a continuous engagement in dialogue, inwhich all learners and teachers participate, rather than as an isolated uni-directional product (Price, Handley& Millar, 2011). Taking this idea one step further, Carless (2018) has argued for the amplification of theconcept of the ‘feedback loop’ into that of the ‘feedback spiral’ (see Figure 1 further below). Whereas a loop
suggests completion, a spiral recognises the ongoing and developmental nature of feedback in the learning
process. These spirals fit very neatly into an SCT assessment model, as students engage with object-, other-,and self-regulation in order to deepen their knowledge and develop their learning strategies.
We recommend that feedback maintain some level of implicitness; in other words, provide hints but not
the answer. Feedback which is too explicit will not allow learners to pool their resources and work within a
ZPD. The aforementioned pedagogical approach shifts the act of writing from testing what was learnt tobecoming learning itself. Furthermore, it reduces the marking load for teachers, with the provision of WCF
having been reported as very time consuming (Lee, 2014). Our experience with the reduced marking load is it
facilitated additional time to spend on each collaboratively written text, thus enabling feedback of a higher
quality to be provided. When time is limited, it is tempting to focus on the more surface level errors, such as
spelling, grammar and punctuation, as these are easy to point out. When more time is available, we felt we
could give feedback on deeper level structural issues, such as the way learners expressed their ideas,
supported their arguments, and wrote in a style appropriate for the genre.

Figure 1. SCT and the feedback spiral in a writing course.
Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

59

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLESThe framework of implementation described allows learners to work as a team, which allows learners tofeel a sense of achievement, with discussions potentially leading to discovering new ideas (Ashwell, 2014) and
fostering learner autonomy (Fitzgerald & Mullen, 2014). We also believe that if learners become moreaccustomed to pair work in writing classes, it may help them to make better use of collaboration in othersubject areas. For example, Ikeda (2014) reported that learners were not able to fully utilize the benefits ofcollaboration in a project which investigated cross-institutional collaborative learning when developing
graduation thesis ideas. If learners have been exposed to and more fully understand the benefits ofcollaboration in other regular classes, they may collaborate more successfully when working together todevelop topics for their graduation theses.
Assessment
A number of models of assessment founded on SCT principles have been developed which can be used to
guide assessment in the writing classroom. Dynamic assessment (DA) is one such model, which seeks tointegrate instruction and assessment so seamlessly that an outside observer would be unable to distinguishwhere one finished and the other began, as instructional and evaluative functions would be embedded inevery interaction (Poehner, 2007). In this way, there is a fundamental difference between theconceptualization of assessment from a DA perspective as opposed to a traditional perspective. Assessment istypically understood in educational processes as being concerned with inferring learner abilities by recording
and measuring individual performance. DA, however, promotes a dialogic collaboration between learners andteacher-assessors so that learner abilities are grown and developed (Poehner, 2007). In this way, themediation of the examinee's performance is essential to assessment.
However, due to the intense involvement of the teacher, which often takes the form of one-on-one
interactions, DA is often considered unfeasible in large educational contexts. Even so, it is possible for the
principles to be adopted and used in larger classes (James, 2012). One such attempt at this is the branch of
DA known as Group Dynamic Assessment, or G-DA. While proponents of DA have favoured a dyadic mediatorlearner model, G-DA proposes a system for dealing with multiple learners at a time. When the group isconceived as a psychological entity in itself, it can be claimed that its own ZPD can emerge, within which
individual learning takes place. Poehner (2009) proposes two forms of G-DA, namely, concurrent G-DA (whenthe teacher dialogues with the entire group); and cumulative G-DA (when the teacher engages in a series of
one-to-one DA interactions as the group works together). In the writing classroom, this could conceivably
take the form of group conferencing at all stages of the writing process, or through written feedback on
collaboratively produced drafts.
As SCT advocates that knowledge is created and transformed through interactions, encouraging learners
to participate in diverse communities of practice is seen as beneficial. One of the most effective ways this canbe achieved is having learners perform the role of assessor, thereby enabling them to become part of anassessing community of practice as well as a producing community. Assessment practice guided by SCT would
work towards increasing student knowledge about assessment processes, criteria and standards, giving justas much attention to these as the course content (Rust, O'Donovan and Price, 2005). In practical terms, this
could best be accomplished through peer review and feedback, as taking on the role of evaluator would
necessarily entail learners having a deep understanding of these aspects of assessment. Peer assessment canbe done with collaboratively-produced work or with individual work. When learners engage in peer
assessment, they are able to see gradations in quality through viewing a number of different pieces of work,
then apply a standard rubric to identify strengths and weaknesses in the work. Thus, “peer assessment seems
to promote self-assessment by making otherwise invisible assessment processes more explicit andtransparent” (Reinholz, 2016, p. 303). In this way, the act of providing other-regulation to peers creates a
学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

60

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLES
symbolic tool which can feed into processes of self-regulation. In the Japanese context, the benefits of peer
assessment in high school and post-secondary education have been supported by a number of studies. For
instance, Asaba and Marlowe (2011) argued that peer assessment increases student involvement,
responsibility and motivation, while Sato (2013) found that not only do Japanese learners have a positive
belief about peer feedback, but training in giving corrective feedback facilitates trust and boosts willingness
and confidence in providing feedback. (See also Matsuno, 2009; Saito, 2008; Taferner, 2008; Wakabayashi,
2008.)
An important issue that is bound to arise in the assessment of collaborative work concerns that offairness. Mulligan and Garofalo (2011) conducted a collaborative writing course with Japanese university
students, and overall received very positive comments from learners as to the benefits of that approach.
However, when considering the small number of negative comments, the main complaint was that grading
was unfair. In particular, some learners felt cheated because they had done most of the work, and yet theyreceived the same grade as their partner. We have not found this to be such a major problem, perhaps
because our students were in groups of three or more, rather than pairs, which creates a different dynamic.
However, any attempt to use collaborative work for assessment purposes will need to take this issue
seriously.
When considering all the above, there are a number of options for teachers wishing to implement a SCT
informed approach to writing assessment. Firstly, students could work in pairs or groups to produce a piece of
written work, rather than working on their own. Greater learning would be expected if collaboration occurredat all stages of the writing process, from brainstorming and planning, through to organising, drafting andediting. Although awarding a joint grade for the finished product would likely leave some students feelingcheated, this can be assuaged by having students choose their own partners and also by changing partners
with each new assignment. Students would then be able to pair up with someone they felt comfortableworking with, and yet if trouble did arise, they would have a chance to switch partners for the subsequentassignment.
When giving feedback on these group assessment tasks, effort should be made to keep the feedback
implicit (see Appendix A for an example). Doing so provides learners with the opportunity to engage with
their peers and pool their resources to identify the specifics of each error. While corrective feedback shouldbe implicit, the criteria and standards to be applied in assessment need to be clear and explicit. Rubrics areperhaps the most effective way of doing this. With a rubric, the often hidden goals of the curriculum are
made clearer, and students are able to evaluate their own progress and make plans to progress towards thenext learning goals (Jonsson & Panadero, 2017).
A final, perhaps radical, option is to allow the use of dictionaries and smartphones during exams. Having
access to these tools would facilitate opportunities for a ZPD to emerge as learners utilise object-regulation,
thus transforming a purely summative exam into opportunities for learning.
Conclusion
Since its introduction to the west in the 1960s, SCT has been informing and guiding much educational
research and practice, providing a clear paradigm through which teaching and learning can be understood.
The preponderance of communicative language teaching approaches in classrooms across Japan has its roots
in SCT. However, while SCT has undergirded the teaching of many language skills, its contribution to thewriting classroom has been relatively muted. Furthermore, from our extensive experience in Japanese highschools and universities, writing is, for the most part, taught and assessed as an individual activity. Aside fromthe prevailing educational tradition in which we work, there is no reason why this should be the case.
Collaborative writing and assessment is not only supported by theory which suggests there are many benefits
for learners, but it is also more reflective of real-life practice. It is not our aim in this short article to argue that
Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

61

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLESsuch an approach is superior to others, but rather we hope that the ideas presented here will contribute topromoting the theoretical benefits of collaborative writing for language learners and assist in providing
teachers with a framework by which to implement such an approach.
References
Asaba, M., & Marlowe, J. (2011). Using peer assessment in the language classroom. The Language Teacher,35(1), 29-33.
Ashwell, T. (2014). Implementing a team-based learning approach in Japanese university seminar classes. In T.
Ashwell, S. Payden, M. Miyahara, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Collaborative learning in learner development (pp.
207-29). Tokyo, Japan: JALT Learner Development SIG. Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/collaborativelearning-in-learner-development-clild/
Beaumont, J. (2011). Focus on Writing 4. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Butler, L. (2014). Longman academic writing series 1: Sentences to paragraphs (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:
Pearson .
Carless, D. (2018). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation inHigher Education, 44(5), 705-14.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). New Jersey, NJ: Ablex.
Ede, L.S., & Lunsford, A.A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: perspectives on collaborative writing.
Carbondale, CO: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fitzgerald, C., & Mullen, M. (2014). The role of collaboration in a learner autonomy program. In T. Ashwell, S.
Payden, M. Miyahara, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Collaborative learning in learner development (pp. 158-78).
Tokyo, Japan: JALT Learner Development SIG. Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/collaborative-learning-inlearner-development-clild/
Fitzpatrick, M. (2011). Engaging Writing 2 (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Ikeda, K. (2014). Cross institutional collaboration: Lessons from an unsuccessful project. In T. Ashwell, S.
Payden, M. Miyahara, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Collaborative learning in learner development (pp. 230-247).
Tokyo, Japan: JALT Learner Development SIG. Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/collaborative-learning-inlearner-development-clild/
Jonsson, A., & Panadero, E. (2017). The use and design of rubrics to support assessment for learning. In D.
Carless, S. Bridges, C. Ka Yuk Chan, & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher
education (pp. 99-111). Singapore: Springer.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second
language research. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
New Jersey, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 15, 108-24.
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207-26). New
York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly,
48(1), 201-213.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to thereviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms.
Language Testing, 26(1), 75-100.
学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

62

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLES
Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment.
The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5-10.
Ohta, A. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal
development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Poehner, M. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3),471-91.
Poehner, M. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning.
The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-40.
Price, M., Handley, K. & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher
Education, 36(8), 879-896.
Price, M., O'Donovan, B. & Rust, C. (2007). Putting a social-constructivist assessment process model into
practice: Building the feedback loop into the assessment process through peer review. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 143-52.
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301-315.
Rust, C., O'Donovan, B. & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: How the
research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,30(3), 231-40
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting. Language
Testing, 25(4), 553-581.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom
intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-33.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14(3), 153-73.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on
writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-34.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion
students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-37.
Taferner, R. H. (2008). Toward effective EFL writing revision: Peer review. OnCUE Journal, 2(2), 76-91.
Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language [Kindle]. (Rev. ed.) (E. Hanfmann, G. Vakar, and A. Kozulin, Trans.)
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original manuscript 1934)
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman., Eds.) (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas, & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch],
Trans.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original manuscripts [ca. 1930-1934])
Wakabayashi, R. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on EFL writing: Focusing on Japanese university students.
OnCUE Journal, 2(2), 92-110.
Wertsch, J. V. (2010). Vygotsky and recent developments. In E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed.) (pp. 231-36). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity andaccuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-66.

Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG <http://ld-sig.org>

63

Learning Learning 『学習の学習』 26 (2): SHORT REFLECTIVE ARTICLESAppendix A
Implicit WCF
The sentence is highlighted, indicating that a grammatical error has occurred within the sentence. The correct
form of the error is not provided. The type of error and its location may, or may not be provided. In thefollowing example, it has not been provided.
I go to the bank yesterday.
In the following example, the type of error and location is provided:

Explicit WCF
The location and correct form of the error is provided.

学習者ディベロプメント研究部会 <http://ld-sig.org>

64