Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010
Feature Article: Makoto Abe
Scaffolding and knowledge coconstruction in collaborative L2
writing
ライティングの共同学習におけるスキャフォー
ルディングと知識の共構成

Makoto Abe,
Poole Gakuin University阿部真（プール学院大学）

英語ライティングの指導は複雑で時間を要します。学生の自律的な学習を促すためには、教師が英作文を添削してあげるだけでは不足かもしれません。学生の自主学習をサポートするために、私は２つのことを考えました。一つは学生に模範文を渡すことです。自分の書いた英作文と模範文を比較することで学生はいろいろな言
語的な側面に気付き、ライティングの技術を向上させることができます。もう一つは友人と一緒に学ぶ環境を用意することです。同じ目標をもった学習者が共に英作文を書き、模範文と比較することで、言語への気づきだけでなく、対話を通して様々な知識や理解を共に作り上げていくことができると考えたのです。
本研究は日本の大学に通う２組４人の大学生による英語の共同学習のプロセスを報告します。題材となったライティングタスクは英検準１級の面接試験で使われる問題です。結果は、学生は模範文との比較をすることで、語彙や文法といった言語的な側面だけでなく、タスクがどのような解答を求めているのかという内容的な側面にまで細かくディスカッションできたことを示しています。本研究はさらに、習熟度に差のあるペアが自分の個性を発揮しながら、共にライティングタスクに関する知識を深めていくプロセスを分析、報告しています。

Introduction
This paper explores the interaction between
student peers as a source of learning support foreach other in the context of constructing anarrative based on a picture-story. There arevarious feedback tools in L2 writing instruction.
Traditionally, teachers’ correction was regarded
as superior to peer-feedback until the lateeighties, when research studies started to showthat students do not necessarily learn fromhaving their errors corrected directly by ateacher. (Ferris, 2003, p. 59). As the view oflanguage education has changed from favouring
explicit teaching to more implicit support, English
teachers need to think about the most effective
ways of supporting students to learn L2 writing
autonomously. The most accessible resource
may be a model text in textbooks for L2 writing
as a model text “encourages and guides learners
to explore the key lexical, grammatical, andrhetorical features of a text and to use thisknowledge to construct their own examples of thegenre” (Hyland, 2002, p. 88). Abe (2008) found

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 20107

Makoto Abethat a model text gave opportunities to learners
to critically reflect upon their own writing, notice
shortcomings, and work out solutions. However,the lower the level of the learner, the less they
seemed to be able to utilize the model andderive any benefit from it. Combining a model
text with near-peer feedback might be a helpful
way to scaffold the novice writers’
understanding of the model. In this paper wewill explore the dynamics of noticing as they
evolved between two different pairs: one a highlevel learner with a low level learner, the othertwo high-level learners.
Collaborative learning: patterns of pairinteraction
The use of pair work in L2 instructional settings
rests on Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural
perspective arguing that human cognition
develops through social interaction. According
to Vygotsky, there is a gap between what
individuals can do by themselves and what theycannot do even with help (Zone of Proximal
Development, or ZPD). Researchers such as
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) called support
from adults or more knowledgeable others in
the ZPD “scaffolding”. Based on Vygotsky’s
theory, his followers have argued thatknowledge is constructed not in our minds but
through social interaction with others. This study
presents detailed analysis of the process ofscaffolding that occurs in pair interaction andthe co-construction of knowledge between two
individuals.
A number of recent studies havedemonstrated the positive impact of peer-peer
interaction on L2 writing (e.g., De Guerrero &Villamil, 2000; DiCamila & Anton, 1997; Swain &Lapkin, 2002). As far as L2 writing is concerned,
Donato (1994) found that collaborative writing
enables L2 learners to jointly pool theirknowledge to resolve their language problems.

Storch (2002) investigated the nature of peerinteraction in an ESL university-level class.
Using two indexes, equality (i.e., equal
distribution of turns, or equal contribution to thetask) and mutuality (i.e., reciprocity of turntakings), she identified four distinctive patternsof pair interaction: collaborative, expert/novice,dominant/dominant, and dominant/passive.
Collaborative interaction consists of highly
reciprocal turn-takings and equal contribution totheir joint activity, where two learners share theideas, discuss them, and are equally engaged
in the same task. On the other hand, althoughexpert/novice pairs are characterized by mutualinteraction like collaborative pairs, one more
knowledgeable learner leads the whole activity
and continuously invites the other lessknowledgeable peer’s contribution. Interaction
in dominant/dominant and dominant/passive
pairs is prone to lack of reciprocity. Dominant/dominant refers to an activity carried out withlittle negotiation, while dominant/passive
consists of an activity solely done by one
participant with little contribution from the otherparticipant. Storch (2002) demonstrated thatcollaborative and expert/novice patterns resultin more opportunities for transfer, coconstruction, and extension of knowledge about
L2 writing.
From the perspective of developmental
psychology, Granott (1993, 2005) specified nine
patterns of pair interaction using two indexes:
degree of collaboration and relative expertise(symmetric vs. asymmetric). This conceptualmodel was similar to that of Storch (2002) inthat pairs with more “mutuality” were morecollaborative and pairs with less “equality” werereferred to as expert/novice in Storch (2002).
Granott (1993) defined interactional patterns
between two collaborative participants withsymmetric expertise as mutual collaboration
and asymmetric expertise scaffolding

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 20108

Makoto Abe(collaborative and expert/novice patterns
respectively in Storch’s study). However,Grannot’s (2005) comprehensive review ofscaffolding suggests that pair interaction withsymmetric expertise also create a ZPD andscaffolding.
Based on the literature review, the two
research questions explored in this study are as
follows:
1. What interactional patterns are identified
when a particular pair of Japanese EFL
learners compares their own composition witha model text?
2. Can we identify any difference in the natureof scaffolding between different partners withinteractional patterns?
Methodology
Data collection procedure
The participants were four Japanese EFL
university students (all females – Aya, Eri, Sae,and Ai, all names are pseudonyms) studying
English. The students’ majors were English,
early-childhood education, and intercultural
studies. Aya, Eri, and Sae held 2nd and Ai held
3rd grades of STEP Eiken. In this study, the 2nd
grade Eiken holders were regarded asintermediate learners and the 3rd grade holder
as a beginning learner. The students, who wereon friendly terms with each other, paired up into
two dyads consisting of a high-high dyad (Ayaand Eri) and a high-low dyad (Sae and Ai).
The study was conducted in a small,quiet self-study room, which the participants
were accustomed to using to prepare for the
STEP Eiken test. On this occasion, they wereasked to complete a collaborative writing task,
which was a new experience for all of them. The
data collection procedure consisted of threestages: writing, comparing, and revising. In thewriting task, the students were asked todescribe what was going on in a four-framed
picture (see Appendix A). The task was adopted
from a speaking task from the textbook for the
STEP Eiken test. Each pair of students was
asked to complete the writing task while
discussing it with each other. Both students
were asked to hold a pen to avoid unilateralcompletion of the task.
In the comparing stage, each pair ofstudents was provided with a model text, thesample answer for the task contained in thesame textbook (see Appendix B). Then, they
were asked to discuss what they noticed whencomparing their own composition with themodel text. As the participants’ speaking skills
were not very high, they spoke Japanese in
their discussion. After this, the participants ineach pair were asked to revise their text,
individually, based on what they noticed throughdiscussion with their partner.
Data analysis
The students’ interaction in the comparing
stage was tape-recorded, transcribed, andsegmented into language-related episodes(LREs). One LRE is equivalent to a segment of
the conversation discussing a particular featureof the text, such as the use of a particular wordor verb tense. Each LRE was translated andsorted into three categories: those related to
vocabulary (lexical), those related to grammar(form), and those related to content. In order tomeasure the quantitative aspects of “mutuality”
and “equality” seen in the participants’interaction, frequency of LREs initiated by each
student was also measured, along with thenumber of turns (per LRE), and the length ofspeech (number of words) were also measured.
Excerpt 1 shows a lexical LRE consisting of twoturns by Aya and Eri. Words that are underlined
represent phrases used in the model text.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 20109

Makoto Abe
Excerpt 1

Excerpt 2

Aya: The model says “because someone”.
Eri: Oh, “someone”.
Aya: What did we write instead?
Eri: It’s “unknown people”. I think it is OK.

L 14Aya: The model says “because someone”.
15Eri: Oh, “someone”.
16Aya: What did we write instead?
17Eri: It’s “unknown people”. I think it is Ok.
L 18Aya: “shutter”, yeah it is “shutter”. I thoughtthat “shutter” is Japanese English.
19Eri: I see. But it seems “shutter” is the mostappropriate word describing thispicture.
C 20Aya: yeah. Then, oh…yeah, “it was not thefirst time” the model says. We didn’t
mention this.
21Eri: Yeah. We should have… Maybe it is
not such a big difference.
22Aya: Hmmm…
Notes. L=lexical LRE; F=Form LRE; C=content
LRE.

This episode implies that Aya and Eri noticed
lexical aspects by comparing their originalcomposition with the model text. So, one
instance of “noticing” can be defined as
equivalent to a “language-related episode” forthis study. Below we will see how theinteractional patterns of the two pairs relate to
Storch’s patterns and explore the scaffolding ineach type of interactional pattern.
Findings
Students paired high-high: a collaborative
pairFirst, the data was globally analyzed based on
Storch’s (2002) four patterns of dyadic
interaction (collaborative, expert/novice,dominant/dominant, dominant/passive). As aresult of the analysis, Dyad 1 (high-high) waslabeled as collaborative and Dyad 2 (high-low)
as expert/novice pairs.
Excerpt 2 is an example of LREs
produced by Dyad 1, Aya and Eri (high-highpair). The two participants continuously
provided each other with comments andresponded to them using phatic utterances suchas “yeah”. This cohesiveness between theirturns is one of the most importantcharacteristics of collaborative pair work in thatit enables interaction to be more mutual (Storch,
2002). The number of turns was similar
between the two students as Table 1 shows,which indicated the high equality of contribution
to the pair work.

Table 1
The frequency of LREs, turns, and the length ofspeech in each dyadic interaction
Dyad 1 (H-H) Dyad 2 (H-L)
Aya - Eri
Sae - Ai
LREs (lexical/
22 (11/6/5)
24 (10/2/12)
form/content)
Turns
58 (30-28)
66 (35-31)
Length of speech 1035 (581-454)1738(n)(1254-484)
Length of speech(56-44)(72-28)(%)
Notes. H=high; L=low.
Students paired high-low: expert/novice pair
Excerpt 3 shows an example of interaction by
Sae and Ai (high-low pair), who were labeled anexpert/novice pair. As is obvious from both
Excerpt 3 and Table 1, Sae’s turns were more
frequent and the length of her speech was
longer than Ai’s.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201010

Makoto Abe

Excerpt 3
C 6 Sae: We missed so much information
which should be included in our writing.
There were two solutions, right? Wewrote only one.
7 Ai: Two? Yeah, yeah.
L 8 Sae: How about vocabulary?
9 Ai: Vocabulary? “Graffiti”? Oh, it is “graffiti”.
10Sae: Yeah, we should have used “graffiti”.
We should have come up with thisword. What did we say?
11 Ai: “draw”…
12Sae: See? The vocabulary is better. It often
rephrases words. Here it says “picture”
but here it says “graffiti.” We repeated“drawing pictures, drawing pictures,
drawing pictures” so many times. Toomuch, isn’t it?
13Ai: Yeah. I see.
Scaffolding and knowledge co-construction:
collaborative vs. expert/novice
The results revealed that both collaborative andexpert/novice pairs were willing to actively
exchange their own ideas so as to co-construct
and share their knowledge. In this section, I willclosely examine how the two participants were
providing each other with scaffolding. The
following excerpt is from Dyad 2, Sae and Ai(high-low pair).
Excerpt 4
C 16Ai: We wrote “everyone was happy”. But
the model doesn’t.
17Sae: I see. “Everyone was happy”… This istheir emotion, right? The model writes
only what is going on in these pictures.
Maybe we shouldn’t use emotional
expressions in this kind of task.
18Ai: Really?
19Sae: Maybe. I don’t know…
(omission)

L 33Sae: Well, we repeated the same words
many times, didn’t we? The model
used more varied vocabulary. For
example, here it says “painted”, and itsays “draw”.
34Ai: Yeah.
F 35Sae: Here, it says “this gave her an idea”.
We wrote “she found a good idea”.
Non-human subjects can be used likethis sentence.
36Ai: Non-human subject.
F 37Sae: Here, again, it says “they were
upset”. Something “upset” thesepeople, you know? Same thing as
non-human subject.
38Ai: Is “upset” a verb?
39Sae: Yeah, it is a passive sentence.
40Ai: It looks like an adjective.
41Sae: Maybe, yeah. It can be used as an
adjective, too.
C 42Ai: But it’s emotion. Same as “happy”
43Sae: Right! So, we can use emotional
expressions in descriptive writing!
In Excerpt 4 Sae and Ai produced content LRE
questioning whether or not “emotional
expressions (kanjo hyogen)” such as “happy”
can be used in a descriptive writing task. This
was their common language problem which
they failed to figure out in the first content LRE(lines 16-19) but successfully solved afterward(lines 42-43). The second, third, and fourth
LREs (lines 33-43) in Excerpt 4 wereconnected. The lexical LRE stimulated thefollowing form LRE in which Sae noticed thatuse of “non-human subjects” in theircomposition would lead to “lexical variety”.
This and following form LREs were directly
related to a common point of “non-humansubjects” and Ai posed the question whether
the word “upset” is a verb. Ai’s question

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201011

Makoto Abe
triggered the more interactive form LRE, which
finally led to the following content LRE where Ai
deduced that it is possible to use the word
“happy” as an emotional expression. Here, theimportant thing is that, despite the smaller
contribution to the task, Ai played an importantrole in the dyadic interaction. She replied to her
partner, posed questions, and sorted out her
partner’s explanations, and noticed somethingthat her partner failed to notice by remembering
their common language problem. Sae led forthe most part in the task, attempting to involve
her partner in the interaction, while Aicontributed to their joint work by letting her
partner notice what she could not notice andattempting to extrapolate general points fromtheir ideas. In the revising stages, both Sae andAi revised their texts in accordance with what
they discussed (e.g., used non-human subjects)
and agreed on (e.g., used “happy”) in many
parts.
The other pair, Aya and Eri produced asubstantial number of LREs with a number ofcohesive turn-takings and phatic utterances. In
spite of the high mutuality of turn-takings andequality of contribution, their interactions
produced LREs which were relatively
disconnected from each other. The first half(lines 14-27) of Excerpt 5 shows that although it
seems that the two participants were activelytransferring their knowledge, their LREs were
not closely related to each other and there wasno sign of co-constructed knowledge. Although
the second half has the content LRE whichreflects their language problem accompanying
descriptive writing tasks (lines 55-58), there wasno resolution between them.

Excerpt 5
L 14Aya: The model says “because someone”.
15Eri: Oh, “someone”.
16Aya: What did we write instead?
17Eri: It’s “unknown people”. I think it is Ok.
L 18Aya: “shutter”, yeah it is “shutter”. I thoughtthat the “shutter” is Japanese English.
19Eri: I see. But it seems “shutter” is the mostappropriate word describing thispicture.
C 20Aya: yeah. Then, oh…yeah, “it was not thefirst time” the model says. We didn’t
mention this.
21Eri: Yeah. We should have… Maybe it is
not such a big difference.
22Aya: Hmmm…
L 23Eri: This model uses “discussion”, here.
24Aya: Yeah.
25Eri: I think it is okay to say “talk about”?
26Aya: Yeah, but don’t you think “discussion”
sounds appropriate when describing
this kind of meeting.
27Eri: Yeah, you are right. “Discussion” isbetter, here.
(omission)
C 51Aya: “the shop owners were talking”, yeah,
yeah, here, wait, it says “twosuggestions writing on the board” We
didn’t write this information.
52Eri: Look how the model describes it… We
couldn’t do this.
C 53Aya: And here, “the introduction of security
camera”. We should have written more.
54Eri: We wrote just what…oh, we just didn’t
write what the picture says in words.
C 55Aya: The model says “the woman was athome reading a book.”
56Eri: That kind of information is notnecessary. It is too detailed.
57Aya: But, maybe, in a picture-describing
task, we have to write everything in the
picture.
58Eri: Really? Who knows it is a “book”? It
may be a magazine.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201012

Makoto Abe
From this, we can see that Eri and Aya,
unlike Sae and Ai, had difficulty assigning roles
in a way that would make their collaboration
productive. Although they noticed more varied
aspects of L2 writing than Sae and Ai (see Table1), they failed to share a common
understanding about what should be done tocomplete the L2 writing task. From a different
perspective, excessive attention to linguistic
aspects (lexical and form) may have been an
obstacle to sharing and co-constructing theircommon knowledge. Although several
refinements regarding linguistic aspects in theirrevised texts were added, the basic content of
their composition was untouched.
Discussion
The results show that the dynamics of noticing
various aspects of L2 writing in dyadic
interaction enable students not only to notice
the gap between their interlanguage and target
language but also to provide each other withscaffolding triggering co-construction of theircommon knowledge. Unlike Storch’s (2002)
study conducted in a classroom setting, only
two interactional patterns, collaborative andexpert/novice, were detected in this study. Thatmay be partly because this study was
conducted in a tutoring context, where thestudents were actively involved in the task. The
high “mutuality” of their interaction may also be
attributed to a particular cultural element,
namely, how Japanese people typically behavein pair work, while the observations in Storch(2002) were conducted in an ESL class withstudents from various cultural backgrounds. On
the other hand, the dimension of “equality” ofcontribution in their interaction can be explainedby the relative expertise as Granott (1993)
suggests, at least in this study, where Dyad 1(high-high) can be defined as collaborative andDyad 2 (high-low) as expert/novice
pairs.
Focusing on the similarity of indexes
adopted by Storch (2002) – mutuality andequality- and Grannot (1993) – degree ofcollaboration and relative expertise, this study
attempted to reveal what Storch’s model does
not explain. In these two case studies, all theparticipants indeed shared a common activity,
observation, and problems, but thecollaborative pair may have been constructing
their understanding independently of eachother. This indicates that the quantitative datasuch as frequency of LREs, turns, length ofspeech cannot necessarily determine aparticular interactional pattern. Hence, thenature of these patterns should be closely
analyzed by referring to what exactly is goingon in their pair work.
In the expert/novice pair, bothparticipants benefit from the interaction withthe partner. That seems to be consistent withthe finding of Dishon and O’Leary (1984) who
claim that group work in which heterogeneousparticipants are engaged has more possibilities
for collaborative learning than a groupconsisting of homogeneous participants. The
participants’ social roles which include initiating
discussion, posing questions, explaining
complicated issues, putting ideas together, andmonitoring their own strategies of L2 writing
may result from the heterogeneity between
participants in a pair. As greater proficiency inL2 skills does not necessarily mean greater
proficiency in other social skills, it is importantfor English teachers to take students’ gender,
personality, power relations, previous
interactions, and willingness to communicate
into account in considering the feasibility of

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201013

Makoto Abe
introducing pair work. Close examination of
students’ interactional moves enables English
teachers to grasp students’ levels of
understanding as well as their degree ofcollaborative orientation. Thus, collecting
protocol data such as students’ collaborative
dialogues is significant not only for research
purposes but for pedagogical reasons too.
References

Abe, M. (2008). Exploring the role of model
essays in IELTS writing test: A feedback
tool. MA thesis published in Asian EFL
Journal. Retrieved from http://www.asianefl-journal.com
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000).
Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in
L2 peer revision. The Modern Language
Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetitionin the collaborative discourse of L2
learners: A Vygotskian perspective. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633.
Dishon, D., & O’Leary, P. (1984). A guidebook
for co-operative learning: A technique forcreating more effective schools. Holmes
Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding insecond language learning. In J. P.

Granott, N. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the
co-construction of knowledge: Separate
minds, joint effort, and weird creatures. In
R. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.),
Development in context: Acting andthinking in specific environments (pp.
183-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Granott, N. (2005). Scaffolding dynamicallytoward change: Previous and new
perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology,
23, 140-151.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL
pair work. Language Learning, 52(1),119-158.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it
through: Two French immersion learners’
response to reformulation. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37,
285-304.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The
development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G. (1976). The
role of tutoring and problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 17, 89-100

Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language
research. (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing:
Implications for second language
students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201014

Makoto Abe
Appendix A

Appendix B

You have one minute to prepare.

Sample answer

This is a story about a shop owner who wanted todeal with a graffiti problem.
You have two minutes to narrate the story.
Your story should begin with the following
sentence:
One day, a woman was in front of her shop
talking to another shop owner.

One day, a woman was in front of her shop
talking to another shop owner. They were
upset because someone had sprayed graffiti on
their shops’ shutters. The woman complained
to the other shop owner that it was not the firsttime it had happened. Later, at a shop-owners
meeting, there was a discussion about possible
solutions to the graffiti problem on the shopping
street. The shop owners were talking about twosuggestions written on the board – theintroduction of security cameras or street
patrols – but could not decide what to do. Thatnight, the woman was at home reading a book.
She was sitting beside her son, who was
drawing a picture of a house. This gave her anidea about how to solve the graffiti problem. A
month later, on the shopping street, the woman
and the other shop owner looked on as someyoung children painted pictures of animals on
the shutters of the shops.

From the pre first grade STEP Test in PracticalEnglish Proficiency, 2009. Used with permission
from the Society for Testing English Proficiency,
Inc.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 201015